Do black/minority homicides matter in this country?

**Scottathew** · January-18-13, 12:09 PM

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** · January-18-13, 12:23 PM

Originally Posted by 48091

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."

**Eber Brock Ward** · January-18-13, 12:34 PM

Originally Posted by 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

**ccal** · January-18-13, 12:29 PM

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"

Originally Posted by 48091

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.

**bailey** · January-18-13, 12:42 PM

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** · January-18-13, 12:49 PM

Originally Posted by bailey

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** · January-18-13, 12:56 PM

Originally Posted by iheartthed

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

**iheartthed** · January-18-13, 01:01 PM

Originally Posted by bailey

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** · January-18-13, 01:05 PM

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.

**bailey** · January-18-13, 01:23 PM

Originally Posted by iheartthed

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.

**brizee** · January-18-13, 12:59 PM

Originally Posted by bailey

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.

**bailey** · January-18-13, 01:47 PM

Originally Posted by brizee

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.

**brizee** · January-18-13, 02:29 PM

Originally Posted by bailey

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.

**rb336** · January-25-13, 12:05 PM

here is Hamilton's statement about militias:

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_29.html

**Scottathew** · January-18-13, 01:36 PM

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.

Originally Posted by 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"

**ccal** · January-18-13, 01:41 PM

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?

Originally Posted by 48091

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.

**night-timer** · January-19-13, 02:55 AM

Originally Posted by 48091

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.

There is a difference between little kids getting massacred at school and drug dealers or rival gangs getting violent with each other. The circumstances, and the parties involved, are clearly very different, hence the level of media coverage after Newtown happened.

Having said that, yes, violence commonly encroaches into the mainstream, not just amongst gangbangers.

Public awareness exists of crime and homicide rates in certain black communities, but I'm not sure it's practical or likely for the media to report on every incident that occurs throughout the US.