Juan Williams: Race and the Gun Debate
Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 38

Thread: Juan Williams: Race and the Gun Debate

  1. Juan Williams: Race and the Gun Debate

    Juan Williams: Race and the Gun Debate Wall Street Journal

    The No. 1 cause of death for African-American men between the ages of 15 and 34: being murdered with a gun.

    This week much of the talk about gun control concerns New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg's $12 million ad campaign to put pressure on senators in key states to support legislation that he backs. Or the talk is about the National Rifle Association's pushback against the Bloomberg campaign. Then there was last week's mini-tempest over Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's decision not to include Sen. Dianne Feinstein's assault-weapon ban in a comprehensive gun-control bill the Senate will take up next month.

    One thing you don't hear much about in the discussions of guns: race.

    That is an astonishing omission, because race ought to be an inescapable part of the debate. Gun-related violence and murders are concentrated among blacks and Latinos in big cities. Murders with guns are the No. 1 cause of death for African-American men between the ages of 15 and 34. But talking about race in the context of guns would also mean taking on a subject that can't be addressed by passing a law: the family-breakdown issues that lead too many minority children to find social status and power in guns.

    The statistics are staggering. In 2009, for example, the Centers for Disease Control reported that 54% of all murders committed, overwhelmingly with guns, are murders of black people. Black people are about 13% of the population.

    The Justice Department reports that between 1980 and 2008, "blacks were six times more likely than whites to be homicide victims and seven times more likely than whites to commit homicide."

    The dire implications of these numbers is evident in a Children's Defense Fund report that included a chilling historical perspective: The 44,038 black children killed by guns since 1979 (when national data on the age of gun violence victims was first collected) is "nearly 13 times more" than all the black people killed by lynching in the 86-year period of 1882 to 1968.

    This awful reality explains why support for gun control in the black and Hispanic community is overwhelming (71% among blacks and 78% of Hispanics, according to a recent Pew poll). That is a marked contrast with national polls on new gun laws. Those polls show 46% of Americans of all races backing the right to own guns versus 50% who agree to the need for more limits on gun owners. Apparently, the heart of opposition to new gun regulations is in the white community. Yet white people face far less daily violence with guns.

    The debate over gun control too often seems a matter of abstractions about the meaning of the Constitution and the permissible capacities of ammunition magazines. Why is so little time spent on a question of more immediate concern—namely, why are so many young black people using guns to kill their neighbors?

    President Obama, a hero in black America as the first black president, has been remarkably quiet on this issue until recently. It was only in December, after the mass killing of mostly white school children in Newtown, Conn., by a white man, that the president took the political risk of backing new gun-control legislation.

    Young blacks' violent deaths from handguns hadn't moved him to such action. The president spoke publicly about that matter only after the recent gun murder of a 15-year-old girl from his hometown of Chicago who had performed at his second inaugural. "Last year there were 443 murders with firearms in this city and 65 were people under 18," Mr. Obama said. "That's the equivalent of a Newtown every four months. This is not just a gun issue. It is also an issue of the communities that we are building."

    In speaking about social breakdown in those minority communities, the president put the gun issue in the context of high rates of out-of-wedlock births that lead to high rates of childhood poverty. "I wish I had a father who was around and involved," the president said, in words that echoed loudly through black and Latino neighborhoods nationally because he revealed a pain so common, yet so rarely confessed, among young people of color.

    The shame and silence is enforced by civil-rights leaders who speak in support of gun control but never about a dysfunctional gangster-rap culture that glorifies promiscuity, drug dealers and the power of the gun.

    "Loving, supporting parents . . . [are] the single most important thing," the president told his audience of young, mostly minority children at Hyde Park Academy High School in Chicago. He made the case for parents as the key to giving children a sense of self-esteem beyond the barrel of a gun.

    Almost 50 years ago, when the 1964 Civil Rights Act was passed, the national out-of-wedlock birthrate was 7%. Today it is over 40%. According to the CDC, the out-of-wedlock birthrate for white children was just 2% in the 1960s. Today it is 30%. Among black children, the out-of-wedlock birthrate has skyrocketed from 20% in the 1960s to a heartbreaking 72% today. The Hispanic out-of-wedlock rate, which has been measured for a much shorter period, was below 40% in 1990 and stands at more than 50% as of the 2010 census.

    When President Obama tried to speak to this crippling dynamic in 2008, he was basically told to shut up by Rev. Jesse Jackson. The Chicago-based activist said: "Barack was talking down to black people," then he added a vulgar threat about what he wanted to do in response. The moment revealed the high cost of speaking honestly about social breakdown in black America.

    I support gun control. But speaking honestly about the combustible mix of race and guns may be more important to stopping the slaughter in minority communities than any new gun-control laws.

    Mr. Williams is a political analyst for Fox News and a columnist for the Hill.

    A version of this article appeared March 27, 2013, on page A17 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: Race and the Gun Debate.

  2.   
  3. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    South Carolina/Charleston
    Posts
    2,388
    So what else is new in this asylum run by its inmates and formerly known as the USA? Hypocrites one and all. Reid votes it down because he lives in Nevada and knows who butters his toast. The garbage in the whitehouse is a thug and only does what he sees in the mirror after he kisses it in the morning. Bloomberg is an ahole with a Napoleon complex--the little twerp believes he is the only one who knows what is right for everyone, but never mentions this race business. I do not recognize this government anymore--it is right out of 1930 Germany and getting worse every single day.

  4. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Houston Metro Area, Texas
    Posts
    3,004
    No respect for this man or Obumer, Traitors to America.

  5. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Elma NY
    Posts
    1,638
    The No. 1 cause of death for African-American men between the ages of 15 and 34: being murdered with a gun.
    ...and most of those deaths occur in cities where guns are prohibited. So the solution is obvious:
    Prohibit all guns in all the other areas so guns don't find their way to these cities.
    This awful reality explains why support for gun control in the black and Hispanic community is overwhelming (71% among blacks and 78% of Hispanics, according to a recent Pew poll)
    Conclusion:
    If you can't get behind that idea then you are a racist.
    It is not the fault of other African-American men between the ages of 15 and 34, or the failed Democratic power that has been entrenched in these cities, or the results of the government replacing the family unit in these democrat party strongholds. It is you whitey's with guns. Its you racist bigoted white emefers of privilege that are giving these African-American men between the ages of 15 and 34 the guns. Hell you may as well be pulling the trigger your own self.

    Yeah Right Juan.
    Tolerance of the intolerant leads to the destruction of tolerance. “You are also reminded that any inappropriate remarks or jokes concerning security may result in your arrest,” in the land of the free.

  6. #5
    Did i miss something Here? First and foremost Congratualions to Juan for living in the United States of America where you of all people should understand your God Given rights. Were you not let go from PBS( aka radio so good the tax payers must pay for it so it can exist) for having voiced your opinion. Now that I got that out of the way. Pbs sought worked real hard to silence you did they not however Fox nex picked you up and understood the value of opposing view points, while not perfect Fox does a better job then most. Ok on to the bigger issue, Race a lot of liberals are quick to jump on the band wagon we need this we need that, instead of taking a real look at facts and history and seeing how to address the root cause of something. Ie the break down of the family dont fool yourself it is not in just one race or another it happens in several races not just Blacks( purposely not playing into the whole African American thing at all) Instead some liberals will champion the cause of this group or that group based on their own pollitical needs at the time. Lets be real here if the liberals in question were so concerned about the intercity blacks, whites, etc why are they not protesting Planned Parenthood? Oh yeah by the way lets take a look at facts here lets look at the founder of planned parenthood Margaret Sanger a blatant racist whose original objective was to help elimate the blacks via abotion. There is a great cause to hitch your wagon to. Then We have POTUS and I quote "God Bless Planned parenthoo" makes me want to throw up. Amazing how liberals can be pro death for children but so opposed to the violence that results in deaths in areas such as Chicago and other cities when it suits their pollitical agenda. Another case in point Dr. Martn Leuther ing a great man with a vision of equallity, not entitlement. He was very pro second ammendment and understand the value of having a tool to protect your family. But Why do the liberals not exploit that fact? Oh and that racist organizaton the NRA how dare they exist and damn all those white people clinging to their guns and bibles! Again look at the history of the NRA and how they were instramental in educating all people in proper firearm useage and protection of families. There again if we leave out the facts and spew lies we can diminish the fact that the NRA did more to help Blacks then the Democratic party ever did! Race Baiters like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, have no interest in serving their community and are more focused on the all mighty dollar and promoting racism for job security for their hate spewing enterprises. As always seek to blame the gun versus addressing the real problem; the devaluing of human life, the break down of the moral fabric of society, and the absence of two parent homes in america and the culture of violence in America, which has more to do with Video games, Hollywood and others then it does with responseable citizens exercising their Second Ammendment rights. It is high time people started identifying themselves as Americans not this American or that American but simply as Americans who are on the verge of losing something very precious if they dont stop and realize the value of self reliance and taking responsibility for their own actions. Buy the Way I not this group or the other I was born here in America by the Grace of God and the good sense of Grand Parents who came to this Great Country fromo the Ukrane via Ellis Island legally and they understood the privalage of living some where People had rights and responsibilities. Wake up America and realize this is not about eliminating your second ammendment rights its really about governmental control and keeping people dependent on the government. As long as the people have the Gun there will be liberty, however take away the Gun and tyrany is sure to follow! Please excuse any spelling errors as I am not able to utilize spell check.

    Thanks And I think I will just go and open carry today because it is leagal where I live and Rights are meant to be exercised!

  7. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    4,676
    I myself am a Black man and nothing is more distressing than seeing my people dying violently at such a high rate. Something not mentioned above, however, was the fact that most shootings of Blacks are done by other Blacks. In an age where Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are quick to protest every shooting of a Black person by a non Black person or the police, neither can be seen protesting the real problem, which is the issue of Black on Black crime, as well as the no-snitching code that protects the killers. Everything that ails the Black community, whether it's the high out-of-wedlock birthrate, low standardized test scores, or the high Black-on-Black crime rate, points to a cultural deficiency, in this Black man's opinion. If we want to change the results, then we need to change our culture, not our society.

    Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
    Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

    Benjamin Franklin

  8. #7
    Really how could you? looking not only at the problem but what needs to be done to fix it. I stand by my original statement and intent to say that it is not a black or white or this or that minority issue it is the problem low income inner cities and a lack of opportunities that leads all people to live with out a sense of hope, community involment, and a sense of desparation and a lowerng of the bar because of this that or the other thing. Children are children and all deserve to have opportunity and the right to the pursuit of life liberty and happyness.

  9. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    NE Mississippi
    Posts
    1,036
    Quote Originally Posted by tattedupboy View Post
    I myself am a Black man and nothing is more distressing than seeing my people dying violently at such a high rate. Something not mentioned above, however, was the fact that most shootings of Blacks are done by other Blacks. In an age where Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are quick to protest every shooting of a Black person by a non Black person or the police, neither can be seen protesting the real problem, which is the issue of Black on Black crime, as well as the no-snitching code that protects the killers. Everything that ails the Black community, whether it's the high out-of-wedlock birthrate, low standardized test scores, or the high Black-on-Black crime rate, points to a cultural deficiency, in this Black man's opinion. If we want to change the results, then we need to change our culture, not our society.
    In my heart of hearts, I truly believe that this was Lyndon Baines Johnson's real intent with "The Great Society". How could a man be a vehement racist one day, and "a champion of civil rights" the next? It is obvious to me that the real intentions of The Great Society and the "war on poverty" was to create racial integration from a different perspective, and continue the tradition of making the black race an underclass, now dependent on the American government for its survival. Or to be more precise, dependent on the Democratic party for its survival.

    This has purposely created the cultural deficiency of which you speak. I won't go into detail of the how and why, but I assure you that Dr. Martin Luther King is rolling over in his grave right now....THIS WAS NOT THE COUNTRY OF HIS DREAM!!!!! Yet some who marched beside him, and others who saw an opportunity, have gotten rich from this modern form of enslavement of the black people. (Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Rep. Elijah Cummings, Rep. Charles Rangel, Rep. Maxine Waters, Rep. James Clyburn, Rep. John Conyers Jr., Rep. John Lewis (a freedom marcher), etc, etc, etc)

    From 1964 to 2012, the War on Poverty has cost the American taxpayer a little over 17 trillion dollars. To put that amount of money in perspective, ALL wars from the Revolution to the Global War on Terror has cost America around 7 trillion dollars.

    Yet the percentage of Americans "living in poverty" is exactly the same as it was in 1964. The only thing that the War on Poverty has accomplished is to slightly increase the standard of living of those living in poverty. It has done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to get them out of poverty. Any American black who has left the ranks of the poor in the past 50 years has done so on his/her own volition, with no thanks to LBJ, or any other Democrat for that matter.

    Why does no one address the REAL gun problem, and the issue of "black-on-black" crime? Because they are pretty happy with it, I'd imagine, as long as it generally stays within the confines of the inner cities. If it moved out to the 'burbs, THEN it would be a problem.

    The biggest problem is that this is a conversation that is not allowed to be addressed. Most all on the left would say that I am a racist for even mentioning this, being a white man, and a Southerner to boot.
    "I don't think that a society that encourages over a million abortions a year....a society that kills out of convenience, i.e., Jack Kevorkian, can not have consequences." --Rush Limbaugh

  10. Quote Originally Posted by fstroupe View Post
    In my heart of hearts, I truly believe that this was Lyndon Baines Johnson's real intent with "The Great Society".

    From 1964 to 2012, the War on Poverty has cost the American taxpayer a little over 17 trillion dollars. To put that amount of money in perspective, ALL wars from the Revolution to the Global War on Terror has cost America around 7 trillion dollars.

    Yet the percentage of Americans "living in poverty" is exactly the same as it was in 1964. The only thing that the War on Poverty has accomplished is to slightly increase the standard of living of those living in poverty. It has done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to get them out of poverty. Any American black who has left the ranks of the poor in the past 50 years has done so on his/her own volition, with no thanks to LBJ, or any other Democrat for that matter.

    Why does no one address the REAL gun problem, and the issue of "black-on-black" crime? Because they are pretty happy with it, I'd imagine, as long as it generally stays within the confines of the inner cities. If it moved out to the 'burbs, THEN it would be a problem.

    The biggest problem is that this is a conversation that is not allowed to be addressed. Most all on the left would say that I am a racist for even mentioning this, being a white man, and a Southerner to boot.
    I'm from the south too and lived in a trailer learning to fly on the Redneck Rivera. I see party lines as the problem. Both sides are bought and paid for.
    Now I live in LA and see people living on the streets in wheel chairs at the end of the month when their check runs out. These are not drug addicts or drunks.
    I became a little more liberal. When I stopped my career flying I became an investor and (like Warren Buffett) I was shocked looking at the books of the companies I was about to invest in.
    The world Mitt Romney came from.
    Mayo Shattuck III was CEO of Constellation Energy. The price of electricity paid by residential customers in the service area of the CEG wholly owned company BGE increased 72%.The stock price of Constellation Energy dropped from a $107.97 high to a low $13.00.[1] Mayo Shattuck III was paid in 2010: $15.7 million. The Maryland governor has complained about Mayo Shattuck III’s pay, as have the editorial page of the Baltimore Sun, members of the Maryland Legislature, and some of the largest Constellation shareholders, but to no avail. Mayo Shattuck III also chairs the company’s board, the same board that sets his pay, whose members make a minimum of $195,000 a year in cash and stock for nominal work.


    Who here gets pay like this when they are fired?
    Then have the nerve to expect a tax cut

    Stanley O'Neal, Merrill Lynch:
    $160 million, including more than $129 million in stock and options.
    O'Neal takes the fall for failing to adequately control the firm's
    credit and market risks, which resulted in a stunning $8 billion-plus
    write down in the third quarter.

    Philip Purcell, Morgan Stanley:
    $43.9 million plus $250,000 a year for life after being forced out. He
    angered a group of shareholders who had already called for a break up
    of the firm by reorganizing management and promoting some executives
    who were seen as loyal to him. The dissident shareholders won out.

    Richard Grasso, New York Stock Exchange:
    Took $140 million in deferred compensation and the disclosure of that
    payment sparked a furor that led to his departure. The pay also
    provoked an investigation and lawsuits, which are still being worked
    out. Grasso has vowed to fight.

    Douglas Ivester, Coca-Cola:
    Took $120 million when he stepped down in 2000 in his mid-50s. The
    departure was deemed a "retirement," but Ivester had presided over a
    period of stagnant growth, declining earnings and bad publicity.

    Robert Nardelli, Home Depot:
    $210 million. He fixed up the home products retailer using techniques
    he learned as an executive at General Electric, but by 2006, he was
    starting to seriously irritate shareholders. The final straw was when
    he told the board to skip the annual shareholder meeting and prevented
    shareholders from speaking for more than a few minutes. He was ousted
    in January 2007.

    Bruce Karatz, KB Homes:
    Gets up to $175 million. The former chief executive of the home
    building company resigned in November 2006 after an internal
    investigation into whether he and other executives backdated stock
    option grants.

    Stephen Hilbert, Conseco:
    Took an estimated $72 million. Hilbert bought GreenTree Financial in
    1998, just as the subprime lending business was about to go topsy
    turvy. The purchase left Conseco, an insurance company, with big write
    downs and ultimately contributed to its 2001 bankruptcy. The company
    has since reemerged from reorganization.

    Michael Ovitz, Disney:
    $140 million after less than two years on the job. A former big-time
    Hollywood agent, Ovitz was recruited to Disney to work under Chairman
    Michael Eisner, but the two couldn't play nice. The pay was disputed
    in a Delaware court, which decided in 2005 that the board didn't
    violate its fiduciary duty in awarding that much severance.

    Hank McKinnell, Pfizer:
    $198 million, including $78 million in deferred compensation he built
    up in 35 years at the pharmaceutical company. Pfizer shares sank 40%
    on his watch, which ended last year. The company had to cut billions
    in costs and fire thousands of employees, and said it wouldn't see
    revenue growth until 2009.

    Jill Barad Mattel
    $50 million severance package Mattel was losing $1.5 million a day
    Mattel's stock price which reached
    a high of $45 in March 1998) traded at $11 in February 2000.
    Under pressure, on February 3, Mattel's CEO Jill Barad resigned
    but received a $50 million severance package


    Frank Newman, Bankers Trust:
    $55 million. A former deputy Treasury secretary, Newman was brought to
    Bankers Trust to restore confidence after the 1994 derivatives
    scandal. He made aggressive moves into technology banking and lending
    (buying boutique Alex. Brown & Sons in 1997). But that push plus a big
    position in Russian government bonds, put the bank on the brink.
    Newman left in 1999 after selling the company to Deutsche Bank.

    Carli Fiorina Hewlett-Packard
    $20 million in severance board of directors discussed with Fiorina
    a list of issues that the board brought back in Tom Perkins
    and forced Fiorina to resign as chairman and chief executive officer of the company.
    The company's stock jumped on news of Fiorina's departure.
    Under the company's agreement she was paid slightly more than $20 million in severance

  11. The banks own the republican party (and many dem's too) Right now the republicans lead the charge to take the teeth out of Dodd-Frank Act.
    These are the same people who gave us the NASDAQ crash of 99. Every 10 years they suck out all the money-get richer and screw the public.

    From Forbes (the capitalist tool)
    Some Tips For The Simpletons of 'Occupy Wall Street'
    Though certain that “Occupy Wall Street” participants are in large part diametrically opposed to my economic philosophies, anger is the thread that makes us kindred. Much of the simplistic, often puerile, often non-sensible amorphous ranting ought to be “matured” to a more specific platform. Perhaps my partial list of ills might aid this unorganized mass to channel their indignations more productively:

    –While banks accepted government loans and support, bankers felt entitled to billions in bonuses paid in 2008 and 2009. Bank boards were complicit in these awards. Egregious, unfair, and yes, immoral under the circumstances at the time, these should be “clawed back” (repaid back to the banks) and distributed to innocent shareholders who suffered.

    Many corporate executives continue to make deca-millions of dollars annually. This is entrepreneurial pay for managerial behavior. They show up to work with no risk whatsoever and get paid like they patented a cure for cancer. Campaign for shareholders rights via proxy votes to elect directors that represent owners NOT management, and set limits on executive compensation.

    –Let’s put some of these guys in jail. Ask for an SEC investigation on former Bank America CEO Ken Lewis for withholding information (lying) to shareholders regarding losses at Merrill Lynch prior to the proxy vote. Demand more investigation of the egregious AIG bailout. Why did creditors of this one company get paid 100 cents on the dollar? Specifically ask why Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein and then Treasury Secretary and former Goldman Sachs CEO Hank Paulson and now Treasury Secretary Timothy Geitner cut Goldman and other banks such a sweetheart deal. All that AIG money went pay huge bonuses to Goldman employees in 2008. Perhaps it was because Goldman Sachs was such a large AIG creditor and in danger of failure if not paid by AIG in full.


    –Call for further investigation of the ratings agencies. How did S & P and Moody’s justify issuing AAA ratings on hundreds or thousands of tranches of subprime mortgage backed securities when there are less than ten US corporations with this coveted [AAA] rating?

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast