TexasCHLforum.com

baldeagle wrote:

K.Mooneyham wrote:

baldeagle wrote:

K.Mooneyham wrote:Well they can either do something about gangs, or shut up about shootings, since the bulk of shootings are gang-related. That's all I'm getting at.

I just checked on that. Gang-related homicides constitute less than 20% of the annual homicides in America. So they are part of the problem, but not the bulk of it. 48% of males and 65% of females arrested for homicide tested positive for illegal substances yet drug-related homicides only accounted for about 5% of the total. Just some factoids I dug up.

So, you're telling me that the constant occurrences of shootings in the known bad neighborhoods in large urban areas like Baltimore, Philadelphia, Chicago, Houston, etc. aren't somehow gang-related? Or is it that a lot of the shootings aren't solved, so they can't officially tie it to gangs?

Not me. The FBI and CDC. Watch The First 48. You will see homicide after homicide after homicide due to a drug deal gone bad or the settling of a beef between two people or a robbery. Nothing at all to do with gangs. Just abysmally bad social skills and atrocious behavior.

I have seen shows where a guy killed his "best friend" during a robbery when the best friend resisted. I've seen shows where an innocent man was killed during a robbery. I've seen shows where people were killed during a shootout between two guys who had a beef with each other. Yesterday I watched one that was between gang members in Miami fighting over turf.

I am NOT saying there are no gang-related homicides. It's obvious there are, and the statistics prove it. What I'm saying is that the highest incidence of homicide is drug related, not gang related. The statistics prove it. The most stunning thing about the show is how they mostly seem to kill people they know.

I've agreed with you much of the time, baldeagle. However, with this stuff, I disagree with two caveats. The first is that IMHO, drugs are gang-related. Not saying there aren't individuals who grow weed and sell it, or cook up the occasional batch of something in the garage, but most drugs are pushed by gangs of one sort or another. The second caveat is that Hollywood and their pals manipulate almost everything seen on television. No matter how realistic (even something that actually happened) is shown on TV, you can bet it was edited to get a specific effect or to prove a specific point. Even the angle of a camera can dramatically change how people see an event. Yes, Hollywood likes money, and yes, they need ratings to get it...but they also have an agenda, and that agenda usually runs counter to the daily life of the average American citizen. If the gangs in this nation could somehow be broken, violent crimes would plummet overnight, I am convinced of that. Not be eliminated, but reduced substantially.

K.Mooneyham wrote:I've agreed with you much of the time, baldeagle. However, with this stuff, I disagree with two caveats. The first is that IMHO, drugs are gang-related. Not saying there aren't individuals who grow weed and sell it, or cook up the occasional batch of something in the garage, but most drugs are pushed by gangs of one sort or another. The second caveat is that Hollywood and their pals manipulate almost everything seen on television. No matter how realistic (even something that actually happened) is shown on TV, you can bet it was edited to get a specific effect or to prove a specific point. Even the angle of a camera can dramatically change how people see an event. Yes, Hollywood likes money, and yes, they need ratings to get it...but they also have an agenda, and that agenda usually runs counter to the daily life of the average American citizen. If the gangs in this nation could somehow be broken, violent crimes would plummet overnight, I am convinced of that. Not be eliminated, but reduced substantially.

I watched a show last night that features a Colorado detective, Lt. Joe Kenda, who solved 400 homicides in his career. The story was about a 17 year old boy who had a dream to be a boxer. He was a health nut, worked out constantly, didn't drink and didn't do drugs. But he wanted to go to college, and the only way he knew (he thought) to get the money was sell drugs. He sold about $800 worth of drugs (cocaine) a week which, according to Lt. Kenda, was "definitely small time". (Yes, it was an incredibly foolish thing to do.)

One night he was partying with friends, at their house, and they all fell asleep. While he was sleeping his friends tried to take some of his cocaine, because they wanted more. He woke up, a fight started, and they beat and stabbed him to death.

Stories like that are told on the First 48 time after time after time. No gangs involved - in the homicide. They never revealed where he got the drugs, and I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if it was from a gang, but the gang is only tangentially related to the homicide.

So your point is correct in that gangs are the genesis of a lot of crime. However, the idea that we get from tv that they are driving around doing drive-bys and constantly shooting each other and other people isn't as true as the reporters want you to think it is. After all, if you watch tv you'd think crime is epidemic in America today. Yet the truth is that homicides are down about 45% from 20 years ago, and our population has exploded. Violent crime in general is down. Reality is not journalists' strong point. Sensationalism is.

baldeagle wrote:
It's very long, so set aside some time to read it. But I found it one of the most even handed discussions of gun policy that I've ever read.

In the real world, I definitely subscribe to the "Not one more inch" philosophy on gun rights.

That being said, in the ideal world that the writer referred to regarding compromising on gun laws, I really wouldn't have too much to disagree with. He didn't suggest that we give in on waiting periods, gun free zones, or any of the other clearly useless anti-gun proposals that we are constantly bombarded with. In fact, with his proposals the national gun community would gain more than we would lose, and in his ideal compromise the debate would basically end.

His compromise would have us give up constitutional carry, but gain national carry reciprocity and national shall-issue permitting. I personally feel that constitutional carry is what the 2nd amendment ensures us, but again this was his ideal compromise between both sides of the debate.

We would also have to give up on background checks, but (again, in an ideal world) the system would be highly streamlined and cost effective. We would be able to instantly run the check online or at various government offices at the lowest cost to the seller and buyer possible. What we would gain by doing that would presumably be improved crackdown on criminal gun sales. (though I would be skeptical of any real impact there)

While he didn't overtly say it, he essentially seemed to be in favor of repealing the NFA. We would gain easier possession of suppressors and SBRs. Maybe even automatics to a degree.

In his ideal compromise, we would gain national carry reciprocity and national shall-issue permitting. We would also seem to gain a repeal of the NFA and a simpler NICS system. In return, all we would actually give up is private sales without a background check. We already don't have constitutional carry in all but a few states.

Unfortunately, we don't live in an ideal world, and our political system would never just stop debating over something like guns. I will continue with the "not one more inch" philosophy, and I still believe that we shouldn't have to compromise to get national reciprocity and constitutional carry.

However, if his ideal compromise was possible, I would consider it.

But we all know the antis would never let that happen.

I truly believe the private resale of firearms helps keep certain folks from seriously entertaining the idea of just slowly but surely revoking all FFLs. I mean, we know some political types out there would absolutely love to shut down all firearms sales in the USA. However, stopping the sale of new firearms without stopping the sale of used firearms, though it would drive the price up, would be a useless enterprise. Firearms would still be out there, the economy would take a big hit, and it would just make a lot of Americans angry. But if they could make it illegal to privately sell firearms first, then slowly shut off the FFLs, why that would be much more like the way it was done in other nations. Thanks, but no thanks, I don't want ANY more gun control. Criminals laugh at it and why should I have problems when it won't do anything to stop them?