don't hear much about in the discussions of guns: race.
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 20

Thread: don't hear much about in the discussions of guns: race.

  1. don't hear much about in the discussions of guns: race.

    I posted this in a different forum but it may be better here.

    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.

  3. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Pittsburgh, PA
    The article read that there is overwhelming support for gun control among blacks and Hispanics. Yet, did this statistic inform them that the vast majority of these murders took place with an illegal firearm? Did the statistic inform them that no amount of legislation to make it harder to purchase a firearm would have prevented most of these murders?

    Obama mentions that 443 murders happened in Chicago... Was he aware that it is illegal to carry in that town? How did these murders happen?
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
    ~ Benjamin Franklin (maybe)

  4. #3
    nor was it mentioned that one of the real reasons there were controls placed on firearm ownership was racism, the powers that be wanted to keep guns out of the hands of the negroes/colored/blacks/african americans whatever term was in vogue at the time

  5. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Blog Entries
    Anytime anyone brings race into the picture, i feel it is an effort to undermine any real progress. The color of one's skin has nothing to do with the 2A, it is just as irrelevant as relating skin color to behavior or mental illness. IRRELEVANT or as Michael Jackson would say, "that's ingorant!"

    don't hear much about in the discussions of guns: race.-image.jpg

  6. It'd be pretty hard for the party that uses the race card quite frequently, saying that republicans are a majority white racist, to bring up race as a factor in gun violence.

    Its hard to have opinions on this subject without being labeled racist. I think, in many areas, there is a distinct lifestyle difference between different races. Not saying all black or Hispanic people are gang members or are uneducated, or that all white people are law abiding educated people. But as democrats love to point out, majority rules, and in places like Chicago, a pretty good majority lives in impoverished high crime areas.

    It's not skin color, its not education alone, or family circumstances. It's a combination of things that need to be addressed, and not all of it can be addressed by government. Not that the current administration would touch the subject anyway.

  7. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Creswell, Oregon
    If you are going to bring race in, you will have to break many PC rules. We can't address the black and Hispanic gun violence without filling jails. That would mean we have more black and Hispanic people in jail than whites. The PC crowd will never accept this. To address the family unit issue you have to add values, again PC rules would be violated. Clinton's "It takes a village" would be effected and that cuts out government as the solution. Never fly. You would have to stress personal responsibility, liberals will not be for that at all. It must always be someone else's fault.
    "You can get a lot accomplished if you don't care who gets the credit" - Ronald Reagan

  8. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    NE Mississippi
    Juan Williams is a liberal. Not the Marxist variety who wants to destroy America, but a true believer that liberalism is better than conservatism. He does admit that he believes in gun control, and his belief is generally that any rifle that falls into their definition of "assault rifle" should be banned, and that handguns should pretty much only be in the hands of law enforcement and licensed, bonded security people.

    He does have a little common sense, he has no problem addressing the real problems in the black community. This has gotten him into trouble with his former liberal buddies, and he is pretty much persona non grata in the liberal realm.
    "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

  9. Quote Originally Posted by fstroupe View Post
    Juan Williams is a liberal. Not the Marxist variety who wants to destroy America, but a true believer that liberalism is better than conservatism. He does admit that he believes in gun control, and his belief is generally that any rifle that falls into their definition of "assault rifle" should be banned, and that handguns should pretty much only be in the hands of law enforcement and licensed, bonded security people.

    He does have a little common sense, he has no problem addressing the real problems in the black community. This has gotten him into trouble with his former liberal buddies, and he is pretty much persona non grata in the liberal realm.

    I posted the story. I am white, and you could say more of liberal yet I believe in the right to defend yourself (carry)
    I have a list of indicted politicians and it includes 149 republicans and 146 democrats
    I think anyone strictly on a "side" be it democrat or republican is part of the problem.

    I place some blame on the NRA that seems to make us all look like we all have no teeth and live all in a trailer park in South Carolina and chew tobacco. (I lived in a trailer on the Redneck Rivera while learning to fly in Penscola)

    I always wonder why the NRA does not focus on keeping crime and criminals in the public eye. I think any prior felon caught with a gun should get 5 years all to be served. Today in Chicago a prior felon caught with a gun gets 2 years with only 50% or less to be served.
    Yes there are groups who push back against any strict minimums for these felons but there are plenty of democrats who see crime is the real problem.

    I applaud Juan for bring out the truth,what all the politically correct are afraid to say.

  10. Just a bit on why 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. Not sure what why you became a liberal has to do with race and gun violence, unless your suggesting these CEOs have pushed more black and Hispanic people to violence.

    I agree, some of these people do crooked business and make a fortune off of it. But so did the Rockefellers, Carnegie, Vanderbilt. But I don't see anyone itching to remove their money.

    I think they should pay their share of taxes, but government oversight into their paychecks is not the answer, which I assume is what your suggesting.

    If shareholders don't like it, sell the stock and flood the market, the company won't last long.

    My point is, if what they are doing is not illegal, may not be moral, then let it be.

    Congress sets their pay, no ones raising hell about that. And these are guys who do no work, as seen by recent events.

    No one should be able to set their own pay. But the government shouldn't dip into my paycheck, no matter how little or how much I make, to help someone unwilling to help themselves.

    We are a country that rebelled against a 3% tea tax, yet we tax everything now.

Page 1 of 2 12 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