Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumMore gangs, more gun violence
http://www.journalgazette.net/article/20120916/LOCAL07/309169940/1043Gangs are expanding, evolving, and posing an increasing threat to U.S. communities.
Those words come from a threat assessment released by the FBIs National Gang Intelligence Center last year.
In that assessment, the FBI estimated there are 1.4 million active street, prison and outlaw-motorcycle gang members belonging to more than 33,000 gangs in the country.
http://www.chacha.com/question/how-many-people-die-from-gang-violence-a-year-in-america
the FBI says the same things about potheads lol
trouble.smith
(374 posts)LOL. sure it is.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)or they are incompetent.
What a freakin' surprise, eh?
Clames
(2,038 posts)...that gang activity was responsible for around 400 of them.
I'll let that sink in for our anti-gun contingent.
Berserker
(3,419 posts)Very little. Gangs are responsible for the vast majority of gun violence in America. But if it is not mentioned the anti-gunners can pretend that America is awash with guns and gun violence is the fault of we the law abiding citizens who support the 2A.
DonP
(6,185 posts)We've had a few of the crowd that whines more in Meta, go ape shot crazy when you bring up gangs as the source of so many shootings, especially in Chicago.
They claim its obviously racist to blame gangs for all that crime, facts and the fact that there are white and Hispanic gangs be damned.
I think there are more than a few local politicians that buy into that line of "thinking" as well and would rather demonize gun owners in general that risk alienating a voting bloc. (At least in Chicago, I know damn well there are!)
ileus
(15,396 posts)oneshooter
(8,614 posts)ileus
(15,396 posts)Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)It's very progressive of you. If I were a gang member I'd probably carry a gun too.
Straw Man
(6,624 posts)... about "dealing with the gangs?
It's very progressive of you. If I were a gang member I'd probably carry a gun too.
Big straw man there. No one is advocating vigilantism. The point being made is that high levels of gun violence are often used as an excuse to support gun control laws, laws that will be observed only by people who aren't the ones responsible for most of that violence. At best, these laws would only serve to add relatively minor charges to the rather extensive curricula vitae of murderous drug dealers.
Make no mistake: There is nothing heroic about the gangs. We're not talking about Robin Hood here. We're talking about the violent domination and exploitation of inner-city communities. Object to their peddling drugs to your children? Testify against them in court? They will kill you without hesitation and then laugh and brag about it.
You have some very quaint notions.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I never suggested that anyone was advocating vigilantism. Those are your words. I got the impression that the rise in gang violence was related, in some way, to their desire to carry. Please correct me if I'm wrong. They use this kind of sensationalist journalism to justify their desire to carry a gun in public. Again, please correct me if I'm wrong.
Now, let's look at some interesting stats provided by the CDC, a credible government agency that has no dog in this fight.
Key findings include:
In Los Angeles and Long Beach, less than 5 percent of all homicides were associated with known drug trade or use. In Oakland, 12.5 percent of gang homicides compared to 16.5 percent of nongang homicides involved drug trade / use; in Oklahoma City, 25.4 percent of gang homicides compared to 22.8 percent of nongang homicides involved drug trade / use. Newark was the only city with a significantly higher proportion of gang homicides (20 percent) vs. nongang homicides (6 percent) that involved drug trade / use.
There was a significantly higher proportion of gang homicide victims who were 15-19 years old in all cities; in general, gang homicide victims were younger than nongang homicide victims.
Approximately 80 percent of all homicide victims were male in each city; however, Los Angeles, Newark, and Oklahoma City still reported significantly higher proportions of male victims in gang homicide incidents compared with nongang homicide incidents.
In all cities, 9296 percent of gang homicide incidents involved firearms, compared with firearm involvement in 5786 percent of nongang related homicides.
http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2012/p0126_gang_homicides.html
Straw Man
(6,624 posts)Not sure what you mean by that. I believe that both your assumptions are wrong, and I stand by what I said in my previous post about the futility of most big-city gun control efforts. And you most certainly did suggest vigilantism in your assertion, albeit tongue-in-cheek, that gangs are justifiably armed against "you guys" who are "out there dealing with the gangs."
All that your stats tell me is that there is a substantial amount of drug-trade-related violence that isn't gang-related. (I'm wondering if biker clubs and other such criminal enterprises are computed as "gangs" in these stats.) In any case, it doesn't change my opinion of inner-city gangs as a plague on the communities they inhabit.
jeepnstein
(2,631 posts)If you were one? Gangs, all of them, at their core are violent criminal enterprises. They're not social clubs.
holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)Berserker
(3,419 posts)That's all I got to say about that. In my best Forest Gump impression.
Remmah2
(3,291 posts)nt