Do black/minority homicides matter in this country?

[brizee]

It's an idea I'm sure alot of black folks ask among themselves.

It's springboarded from the tragedy in Connecticut.

27 people are murdered, 20 of them children, most of them white.

Within a month New York state comes out with new gun laws while the Federal government considers new regs.

Meanwhile Chicago just had 500 murders in 2012, while Detroit had 400. At best you get some tsk-tsks, at worst you get scorn about "those people" and bootstrap bullshit.

People can clearly see the double standard. They lash out in some pretty ugly, understandable ways to it.

In this forum the sentiment is brought up. Whenever Chicago and Detroit are contrasted it's said that Chicago is in a much better spot because it's enormous, disgusting, senseless violence is concentrated in the ghettoized south side and mostly black-on-black or latino-on-latino.

Really? It's like, I know you think you're saying something, but you're really truly not.

And it's not a niche viewpoint. According to well known shemale Ann Coulter:

If you compare white populations, we have the same murder rate as Belgium...So perhaps it’s not a gun problem, it’s a demographic problem.

Personally I think, No black lives aren't seen as valuable as white lives. By other black people especially, as I wrote in a previous thread, we black people inexplicably hate each other more than anyone else could.

Just a small example is a recent hit movie based on a novel.

A prepubescent character dies in both the novel and film. The character is specifically described as black and coming from a territory that used to be Georgia. A ton of idiots didn't pick up on that. When seeing the character is black in the movie, they actually felt comfortable enough to broadcast that they didn't feel as bad about their death as when they believed the character was white.

An insignificant but extremely revealing reaction. IMNSHO anyway.

[Shollin]

Doesn't Chicago have some of the toughest gun laws in the country?

[Scottathew]

I'll explain the difference:

In Newtown, CT - the killings all happened within a few minutes, at the same place, by the same gunman, thus classifying it as a massacre.

In Detroit, the murders happen a few a day, and generally are young adults killing other young adults [[but not children).


I think it's quite a stretch to try to turn this into a race issue.

[Detroitnerd]

I think you're right, Brizee. I also think the U.S. is still a pretty racist country.

Maybe not in the same way it was 60 years ago. It's more passive and less active.

But part of it has to do with the way news media work.

An image of crying, affluent white children mourning their white classmates is great television.

An image of a brown family on the other side of the world picking up the pieces of their relatives after a drone strike is not good television.

When little flaxen-haired Cindy goes missing from the upscale gated community, we're Amber Alerted until the tot is found or the made-for-TV movie is made.

When little Aisha goes missing from the west side, do we hear anything at all?

And that stuff with Hunger Games goes to show just how pervasive it is. It seems that a lot of white people simply cannot see black people as their surrogates in a drama, and will discount it in a text and resist it in a movie.

[Eber Brock Ward]

I think it's quite a stretch to try to turn this into a race issue.

I think there is appropriate outrage when an innocent child or senior or something like that gets shot and it comes to light. I also think people couldn't care less when gangbangers or drug-pushers get shot, and many think that it's actually a good thing.

Ultimately, I think that many people that feel that way can't or don't care to make the distinction and just lump innocent and not-innocent people together as "the Southside" or "Detroit."

[ccal]

So because they happened at once instead of over a period of days that means what? And the definition of massacre is:
1
: the act or an instance of killing a number of usually helpless or unresisting human beings under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty

2
: a cruel or wanton murder

When almost 100% percent of murders is of a particular group of folks, does that also meet the standard of a "massacre"

I'll explain the difference:

In Newtown, CT - the killings all happened within a few minutes, at the same place, by the same gunman, thus classifying it as a massacre.

In Detroit, the murders happen a few a day, and generally are young adults killing other young adults [[but not children).


I think it's quite a stretch to try to turn this into a race issue.

[Eber Brock Ward]

I think there is appropriate outrage when an innocent child or senior or something like that gets shot and it comes to light.

For an example, this is quite literally the first story under "News" on the Free Press' website right now: http://www.freep.com/article/2013011...xt|FRONTPAGE|p

[iheartthed]

Short answer to your question: of course minority-specific issues "don't matter" to the majority. That's the flaw of a democracy. It will only matter when 1) the effects of the problem spread outside of the minority community, or 2) the majority population is shamed into caring about the situation. Newtown falls under point one.

David Frum wrote a really good op-ed after Ann Coulter opened her big fat mouth about "demographics" being the problem:

The typical murder has one victim, not many. The typical murder is committed with a handgun, not a rifle. And in the typical murder, both the perpetrator and the victim are young black men. Blacks are six times as likely as whites to be the victim of a homicide. Blacks are seven times as likely to commit a homicide.

The horrifying toll of gun violence on black America explains why black Americans are so much more likely than whites to favor gun control.

Conversely, fears of being victimized by violence explain why so many white Americans -- especially older and more conservative white Americans -- insist on the right to bear arms in self-protection. They see gun violence as something that impinges on them from the outside. They don't blame guns for gun violence. They blame a particular subset of the population. And they don't see why they should lose their right because some subset of the population abuses theirs.

A writer I greatly admire, Rod Dreher, an independent-minded conservative, gives voice to such feelings in an article posted this weekend on the American Conservative website. Dreher expresses himself forcefully and frankly. That frankness should be welcomed, because the more clearly a mistaken idea is put, the faster we can reach a better understanding.

Dreher wrote:

"Yesterday the Baton Rouge Advocate published a lengthy analysisof the 2012 murder stats in the city. Take a look at this PDF of one of the inside pages. Last year, 83 people died by homicide in Baton Rouge. Of that number, 87% were black, and 87% were male. Two-thirds had been in trouble with the law before, and one-third had been in trouble with the law for drugs. The median age of victims: 26.

"Of the perpetrators, the median age was 22. Get this: 96% of them were black, and 90% were male. Almost two-thirds had previous arrests. One out of four had a drug record.

"Most of the murders took place in the poorest parts of the city.

"What can we learn from these statistics? That murder in Baton Rouge is almost entirely about young black men from the poor part of town killing other young black men from the poor part of town. It's mostly a matter of thugs killing thugs."

If you look at the world that way, gun control must seem a pointless diversion from the real problem: not guns, but one particular group of gun owners. Somebody else's problem. But life is not so neatly separated.

Guns offer equal opportunity tragedies. More than 8,000 white Americans had to be treated for nonfatal gun injuries in 2008. Eighty percent of those who commit suicide with a gun are white males. The gun that the suburban family buys to protect itself from "thugs killing thugs" ends up killing its own: One important new study finds that a gun kept in the house is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than to be used in self-defense.

Full text here: http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/15/opinio...ace/index.html

[bailey]

I notice you didn't respond to the earlier notation, so I'll post it again..

Doesn't Chicago have some of the toughest gun laws in the country?

[iheartthed]

I notice you didn't respond to the earlier notation, so I'll post it again..

Can you give an example? New York has very tough gun laws that the officials have attributed to the dramatic drop in the murder statistics.

[bailey]

Can you give an example? New York has very tough gun laws that the officials have attributed to the dramatic drop in the murder statistics.

Well, I didn't orginally post it, but let me google that for you...

​Chicago's top cop is looking to state legislation to help break the cycle.

During a Chicago Ideas Week panel discussion on Thursday, Supt. Garry McCarthy again called for tougher gun laws and lamented the unspoken code of silence that keeps shootings and gang-related murders from being solved.

McCarthy said 85 percent of Chicago deaths are from gun shots, and though the city has some of the toughest gun laws in the country there have been 400 gun-related deaths here this year alone.

Source: http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local...#ixzz2ILoSfmdW

[brizee]

I notice you didn't respond to the earlier notation, so I'll post it again..

If the rest of the country doesn't have strong enforcable laws it's not gonna do a lot of good.

If a gun can be purchased from outside the city, or a border state we're just chasing our own tails.

It's often brought up only criminals will have the guns.

So demand is ALWAYS going to be there.

So attack the supply side. Strictly limit and ENFORCE what type of gun is allowed to be manufactured or imported into this country.Shotguns and hunting rifle aren't the weapon of choice for murder. Keep a strict list of who owns what and limit it. Exactly one handgun per adult. And if you commit a crime, yell at your wife, or cough too loud it gets snatched immediately.

I don't have all the answers. And it's a hard problem to fix. But it's not nearly as fucking difficult as the forces that profit from and get elected into office off of this issue.

How many murders a year in this country are caused by grenades? Give me one reason grenades are as regulated and controlled that can't apply to firearms and I'm all ears.

[iheartthed]

Well, I didn't orginally post it, but let me google that for you...

I mean by what metric do you measure "toughest gun laws in the country". By the number of laws regulating guns? By the restrictions placed on gun owners? By the restrictions placed on handling of guns? Do they make everybody carry their guns in purple holsters??!! What exactly makes Chicago's gun laws some of the toughest in the country?

It just seems like a hollow statement without actually providing details of what Chicago's gun laws restrict. Then there's the question of whether relatively tough gun laws in a country with relatively liberal gun policies really even means anything?

[jt1]

I think the reaction to the violence is key:

Murder in minority communities: The majority reaction is, "They[[the minority community) need to do something about that."

Murder in white communities: The majority reaction is, "We[[the country at larg) need to do something about this."

Very different reactions and expectations that are very telling. Hell, just look at the media coverage. When a minority is killed the cameras are right in the families faces getting the out of control reaction but when it hapens in a white community the cameras are typically at a distance letting them grieve.

[goggomobil]

Someone mentioned Amber Alerts and a perceived lack of attention based on race.

From the US government's Amber Alert website, statistics in .pdf form are linked below.

Search for 'black' by using you web browser or pdf reader's search tool.
The statisical breakdown in each annual report shows a disproportionally higher rate of Amber Alerts issued for black children than white children, based on the US Census and its reported percentages of declared race.

2011: http://www.amberalert.gov/pdfs/11_amber_report.pdf

2010: http://www.amberalert.gov/pdfs/10_amber_report.pdf

2009: http://www.amberalert.gov/pdfs/09_amber_report.pdf

2008: http://www.amberalert.gov/pdfs/08_amber_report.pdf

2007: http://www.amberalert.gov/pdfs/07_amber_report.pdf

As far as the system in place goes, if there is any disparity in Amber Alerts, it would rest on the news media.

[bailey]

I mean by what metric do you measure "toughest gun laws in the country". By the number of laws regulating guns? By the restrictions placed on gun owners? By the restrictions placed on handling of guns? Do they make everybody carry their guns in purple holsters??!! What exactly makes Chicago's gun laws some of the toughest in the country?

It just seems like a hollow statement without actually providing details of what Chicago's gun laws restrict. Then there's the question of whether relatively tough gun laws in a country with relatively liberal gun policies really even means anything?

I think that is a valid discussion.... but not the point the OP was making . He is apparently incensed that after Newton there was push by Cuomo to get new, more restrictive gun laws on the books in NY. The OP implies that the only time gun laws get passed is when a little white girl gets shot. The only thing I'm pointing out is the city he was using as an example of having high gun crime and where "black lives" are not as important as white ones is nationally recognized as having some of the strictest gun laws in the country.

[p69rrh51]

I think the reaction to the violence is key:

Murder in minority communities: The majority reaction is, "They[[the minority community) need to do something about that."

Murder in white communities: The majority reaction is, "We[[the country at larg) need to do something about this."

Very different reactions and expectations that are very telling. Hell, just look at the media coverage. When a minority is killed the cameras are right in the families faces getting the out of control reaction but when it hapens in a white community the cameras are typically at a distance letting them grieve.

jt1 I think you are right for the most part. Having been involved with the media when my father passed away they did keep their distance and were quite polite with a request for interviews and info.
I have say though they also treat individual white communities by income level also. It seems as the income level goes up the distance increases.

[Detroitnerd]

Someone mentioned Amber Alerts and a perceived lack of attention based on race.
As far as the system in place goes, if there is any disparity in Amber Alerts, it would rest on the news media.

Oh, I do mean it's the media.

I thought one of the best responses to Newtown through the prism of race was from Glen Ford at the Black Agenda Report. It definitely goes against the grain of the idea, posted here, that blacks favor gun control. After all, would the Black Panthers have favored gun control?

http://blackagendareport.com/content...lt-mass-murder

[Scottathew]

The situations are different, whether or not you nit-pick what "massacre" means.

Believe it or not, if someone walked into a Detroit elementary school and killed 20 kids, it would be a national media story that would be covered at length for quite a long time.

So because they happened at once instead of over a period of days that means what? And the definition of massacre is:
1
: the act or an instance of killing a number of usually helpless or unresisting human beings under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty

2
: a cruel or wanton murder

When almost 100% percent of murders is of a particular group of folks, does that also meet the standard of a "massacre"

[ccal]

Nit-pick? You said massacre not me. My point is this,whether 27 people get killed at the same time or 27 people get killed over 27 days the fact remains that 27 people lost their lives, why have outrage over one group instead of outrage for everybody?

The situations are different, whether or not you nit-pick what "massacre" means.

Believe it or not, if someone walked into a Detroit elementary school and killed 20 kids, it would be a national media story that would be covered at length for quite a long time.

[bailey]

If the rest of the country doesn't have strong enforcable laws it's not gonna do a lot of good.

If a gun can be purchased from outside the city, or a border state we're just chasing our own tails.

It's often brought up only criminals will have the guns.

So demand is ALWAYS going to be there.

So attack the supply side. Strictly limit and ENFORCE what type of gun is allowed to be manufactured or imported into this country.Shotguns and hunting rifle aren't the weapon of choice for murder. Keep a strict list of who owns what and limit it. Exactly one handgun per adult. And if you commit a crime, yell at your wife, or cough too loud it gets snatched immediately.

I don't have all the answers. And it's a hard problem to fix. But it's not nearly as fucking difficult as the forces that profit from and get elected into office off of this issue.

How many murders a year in this country are caused by grenades? Give me one reason grenades are as regulated and controlled that can't apply to firearms and I'm all ears.

I hate to be "that guy" but all that you just listed is simply going to ensure the only people that have guns are the criminals. Restrict gun manufacturing and importation? Tried that with the assault weapons ban version 1.0? How'd that work out in Columbine? Detroit? or Chicago? One gun per household? Unconstitutional. Seizure of weapons? Unconstitutional. Strict banning of all weapons? Unconstitutional.

Banning drugs has not stopped the drug trade. Banning alcohol did not stop drinking. banning guns will not stop gun violence.

It's not a "race" issue it's a poverty issue. It looks like a "race" issue because a disproportional amount of urban poor people are black. However, I would bet that life is just as cheap in rural areas populated by poor whites.

At some point the culture is going to have to change and it's probably a better use of time, money and resources attacking poverty that drives the violence rather than running around with our hair on fire over the tools of the violence.

[Zacha341]

What an irony. Apparently the criminals did not get the memo!

Doesn't Chicago have some of the toughest gun laws in the country?

[ccal]

I'm sorry but the whole "the only people that are going to have guns are the criminals" argument is pure BS. There are currently 300 million plus guns in the United States,a majority owned by law abiding people. To make it seem like there are marauding groups of people running around pillaging and terrorizing everybody is a bit disingenuous.

[bailey]

I'm sorry but the whole "the only people that are going to have guns are the criminals" argument is pure BS. There are currently 300 million plus guns in the United States,a majority owned by law abiding people. To make it seem like there are marauding groups of people running around pillaging and terrorizing everybody is a bit disingenuous.

If you make legal gun ownership nearly impossible or so restrictive as to nullify any legal reason to own a gun legally...only criminals will possess guns. There are, as you say, 300 million+ guns in this country... banning guns, making certain guns illegal, making certain types of ammo illegal isn't going to do a damn thing but satisfy the need to "do something".

[brizee]

I hate to be "that guy" but all that you just listed is simply going to ensure the only people that have guns are the criminals. Restrict gun manufacturing and importation? Tried that with the assault weapons ban version 1.0? How'd that work out in Columbine? Detroit? or Chicago? One gun per household? Unconstitutional. Seizure of weapons? Unconstitutional. Strict banning of all weapons? Unconstitutional.

Banning drugs has not stopped the drug trade. Banning alcohol did not stop drinking. banning guns will not stop gun violence.

It's not a "race" issue it's a poverty issue. It looks like a "race" issue because a disproportional amount of urban poor people are black. However, I would bet that life is just as cheap in rural areas populated by poor whites.

At some point the culture is going to have to change and it's probably a better use of time, money and resources attacking poverty that drives the violence rather than running around with our hair on fire over the tools of the violence.

As I said actual enforcement and the removal of forces actively working against responsible policing of guns would go a long way.

As for the constitution, I'm not close to a lawyer. But I don't see too many well regulated militias walking the streets do you? And some types of guns and mods are already banned, so unconstitutional is more of an opinion and less of a a fact than your post is insinuating.