Second Amendment and urban violence

Let me start this by saying that I think the Second Amendment is an extremely important part of the US Constitution, and it's abysmal the constant attacks upon it, but...

There's something that irks me about defenders of the Second Amendment (for all you non-US-peoples, that's the right to keep and bear arms around here), and that's that everyone wants to knock down all the gun control laws, but they propose no solutions to the problem of urban violence. It's like they have no ideas on how to tear down the structures of these cultures of violence that perpetuate through the generations and hold hostage entire neighborhoods around America.

I know people that work in the prison system. It's not that unusual to find out that most of these inmates have lived with violence all their lives. Many of them have lost mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, etc. to gun violence. One thing I've realized from these stories of inmates is that violence is the only way most of them know how to solve their problems, and now they're in environments with other violent people. And then there are people who may be innocent, or committed a non-violent crime, but yet they're put into environments with violent people.

Very rarely do gangs ever target children. So any solutions shouldn't be done for the children because that's just a lame excuse that won't effect the root of the problem, which is that people grow up in these neighborhoods filled with violence. Violence begets violence. Therefore, the influence of violence must end, and the structures that encourage it (e.g. gangs) must be torn down. Violence is often a means to an end, and so the impetus for violence should be reduced or eliminated all together.

Well, I got some ideas.

A federal group ought to be organized to study the psychology and networks of gangs--both in prisons and in neighborhoods. The group should be given free reign to infiltrate gangs incognito, but prevent their evidence from being usable in court (it could, however, be used by police to find evidence for a crime or to prevent a crime, however). They would present their findings every few years. This used to be the purpose of the FBI, but that purpose seems to have been lost over the years.

Programs for reducing urban violence ought to be evaluated for efficacy, statistically, every few years, and reviewed for extension after an even longer period of time (hopefully to prevent metaphorical myopia).

The drug war needs to be stopped. Instead of laws banning usage or sale, there should be laws for regulation instead. Laws regulating alcohol and tobacco have been far more successful than the drug war ever has. I am, however, somewhat reluctant to repeal laws against coc aine because it can kill people on their first try, but maybe there's a better way than criminalization. Doing this will prevent much of the impetus for gang violence, though certainly not all.

The prison system needs to start doing psychological evaluations of all inmates to evaluate their propensity for violence and manipulation, and then sent off to appropriate prisons that can handle those particular individuals. We also need to invest in programs that have been proven to reduce recidivism (i.e. repeat offenders). The programs that truly work and truly reduce recidivism are expensive, but they are worth it because it would be more expensive (both socially and monetarily) to have to re-imprison them. They are out there, but we as a society, must be willing to invest in that expense if we truly wish to create a safer society. Most politicians hate those programs because they only see the immediate expense, and so they go for the best snake oil, so beware of those shallow-minded politicians.

Neighborhood programs and activities likes sports that keep people busy must be funded, and they must be targeted at more than just the youth, but also the adults--especially young adults who often have the closest ties to gangs.

So, what are your ideas?

Regardless of what are opinions are on the cause of urban violence, the Constitution still stands and the right to bear arms must NOT be infringed.

The real issue with urban violence is that of government oppression. Much of gang violence centers on the illegal drug trade. If recreational drugs were legalized, many gangs would fall apart and much of the urban violence would fall off.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people, and people kill people for a reason. Find the reason, solve the true problem, and the killing will stop. Taking away weapons and having an unarmed (read: defenseless) citizenry will only worsen the problem.

Originally posted by southern_cross3
Regardless of what are opinions are on the cause of urban violence, the Constitution still stands and the right to bear arms must NOT be infringed.

must not?
care to give me a reason why?
come on, we have an amendment process for a reason
it's not like the US hasn't amended an amendment before

Infringed? Remember what one judge said, “The laws means what we say it means.”

Ever hear of the Sullivan Act? New York, 1911. It kept Manhattan almost gun free until after the Second World War when so many guns were brought in from Arlington, VA. An example why state’s rights are really state’s wrongs. Back in the 1930s, submachine guns were highly restricted and essentially taken out of the mail order business. It is against the law to modify a factory made rifle or shotgun by shortening its barrel or its stock. Or exceeding certain magazine capacities. Its against the law to deface a serial number on a gun. While not directly anti-gun, it is against the law to have an unlicensed silencer. As was proven a couple years ago, a Texas DVO - domestic violence order- takes precedence over the Second Amendment. Another Texas case saw a man go to prison for being a convicted felon owning a gun store. You can’t legally buy a gun from a gun dealer if you are a druggie. Or under psychiatric care. I’ve only mentioned 5 or 6 of the best known laws infringing on the right to ownership, possession or use of firearms. There are 100s.

So what do you mean, must Not infringe?



[edit on 1/3/2007 by donwhite]

In 1970(I'm dating myself) I took a marlin 30-30 to high school for a play. That action caused no stir what so ever. I as a minor, bought ammo of all types at OTASCO, no checking at all.

When I went to college I carried a Winchester 30-30 in the gun rack in my pickup. Never had a problem.

So what has happened in the last 30+ years?

Lack of parent discipline of children.

Lack of school discipline of children.

Not educating children, just passing them along.

Putting sports above education.

The welfare state.

Politicians lying and getting away with it.

News Media lying and getting away with it.

How that for a starter list?

Citizens being held accountable for their actions would help a lot!

Roper

posted by Roper

In 1970 I took a [lever action] Marlin .30-30 to high school for a play. When I went to college I carried a Winchester .30-30 in the gun rack in my pickup. Never had a problem. So what has happened in the last 30+ years? [brackets are mine]

1) Lack of parent discipline of children. Disagree.
2) Lack of school discipline of children. Disagree.
3) Not educating children, just passing them along. Disagree.
4) Putting sports above education. Partly agree.
6) Politicians lying and getting away with it. Always has been the case.
7) News Media lying and getting away with it. Agree.

How that for a starter list? Citizens being held accountable for their actions would help a lot! Roper [Edited by Don W]

I’m thinking the times are passing us older types by. Just had my 3 grand nieces, age 12, 14, and 16, down here in FL over the holidays. The youngest lives in Ky, the older 2 in GA. The 12 year old brought some homework with her, and I offered to help, but it turned out I could not help her. Questions are too advanced for me. Chemistry. Physics. Math. The Ky girl just got paid $500 for a tv commercial. Her first. The two girls in Atlanta play soccer, are in the marching band or flag unit, and both do well enough to be planning on colleges. The 2 teens play in a band for the monthly Teen Age Mass in Atlanta. I don’t like that kind of music in church, but they don’t like my kind of music, and they are the future.

I could list some things they do I don’t like, things I could not do when I was growing up, but hey, then’s then, now’s now. Instead of me lamenting the passing of the good ole days, I’d do better to learn what the current young teens are talking about.

We’ve always had lawbreakers. After the Holocaust, the Hiroshima and Nagasaki event, the Vietnam War, the Nine Eleven Event, and now the Iraq Civil War, why should we be surprised if some of our less well adapted or adjusted kids think it’s cool to kill their classmates?

Look at that Russian school in Chetznya a couple years ago. Our kids are growing up in a violent world. The wonder is they are not more violet. I’m pretty much favorably impressed overall with our children. Like the Allstate slogan, We’re In Good Hands!


[edit on 1/3/2007 by donwhite]

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
must not?
care to give me a reason why?
come on, we have an amendment process for a reason
it's not like the US hasn't amended an amendment before

I call shaninigans!!!!

this is coming from the person who believes the phrase "under God" should be removed from the pledge of Allegiance because it is "Unconstitional."

Do I detect a bit of hypocrisy here? Is the constitution only worth upholding when it supports your opinion?

Originally posted by donwhite

posted by Roper

In 1970 I took a [lever action] Marlin .30-30 to high school for a play. When I went to college I carried a Winchester .30-30 in the gun rack in my pickup. Never had a problem. So what has happened in the last 30+ years? [brackets are mine]

1) Lack of parent discipline of children. Disagree.
2) Lack of school discipline of children. Disagree.
3) Not educating children, just passing them along. Disagree.
4) Putting sports above education. Partly agree.
6) Politicians lying and getting away with it. Always has been the case.
7) News Media lying and getting away with it. Agree.

How that for a starter list? Citizens being held accountable for their actions would help a lot! Roper [Edited by Don W]

I’m thinking the times are passing us older types by. Just had my 3 grand nieces, age 12, 14, and 16, down here in FL over the holidays. The youngest lives in Ky, the older 2 in GA. The 12 year old brought some homework with her, and I offered to help, but it turned out I could not help her. Questions are too advanced for me. Chemistry. Physics. Math. The Ky girl just got paid $500 for a tv commercial. Her first. The two girls in Atlanta play soccer, are in the marching band or flag unit, and both do well enough to be planning on colleges. The 2 teens play in a band for the monthly Teen Age Mass in Atlanta. I don’t like that kind of music in church, but they don’t like my kind of music, and they are the future.

I could list some things they do I don’t like, things I could not do when I was growing up, but hey, then’s then, now’s now. Instead of me lamenting the passing of the good ole days, I’d do better to learn what the current young teens are talking about.

We’ve always had lawbreakers. After the Holocaust, the Hiroshima and Nagasaki event, the Vietnam War, the Nine Eleven Event, and now the Iraq Civil War, why should we be surprised if some of our less well adapted or adjusted kids think it’s cool to kill their classmates?

Look at that Russian school in Chetznya a couple years ago. Our kids are growing up in a violent world. The wonder is they are not more violet. I’m pretty much favorably impressed overall with our children. Like the Allstate slogan, We’re In Good Hands!

[edit on 1/3/2007 by donwhite]

You're right in that there have always been social problems, and violence associated with those social problems. There's nothing of the old times over which to reminisce. In the "good old days," blacks and whites drank at different fountains, the KKK had free reign to terrorize black neighborhoods, we had more struggles with the growing pains of racial integration (we still do, but it's rare enough these days that it makes headlines), and we all lived in fear of the Commies. Urban violence was still there, but the media didn't care. If anything, it was probably worse during the 1970s than it is today, but no one made it a top news headline, or even the focus of statistical studies. The 70s drug culture didn't help.

The problem is that while we've advanced technologically, we haven't advanced at an equal pace socially. The weapons are deadlier today, and it's easier to find anybody anywhere. Young people these days don't always realize the danger of putting all their personal information online. They become easily found targets for anyone looking for them.

We're always going to have bad parents, bad schools, uneducated people (though hopefully that will approach zero in the future), bad prioritization in schools, lying politicians, and lying media, but those problems have always been with us. For us to advance socially, we need to find solutions that reduce the effects of those social ills, and thus to stop the cycle of violence in these neighborhoods. Those solutions need to happen in a way that doesn't infringe upon the Second Amendment.

Originally posted by XphilesPhan

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
must not?
care to give me a reason why?
come on, we have an amendment process for a reason
it's not like the US hasn't amended an amendment before

I call shaninigans!!!!

this is coming from the person who believes the phrase "under God" should be removed from the pledge of Allegiance because it is "Unconstitional."

It should be. We are a nation that believes in freedom of religion, and the Pledge of Allegiance should be an oath to protect all the freedoms we cherish, including freedom of religion, but that's not what it is if the Pledge binds it to monotheism or any other religion for that matter. How would you feel if it said "under Zeus" instead?

Do I detect a bit of hypocrisy here? Is the constitution only worth upholding when it supports your opinion?

There is no hypocrisy in his post. He proposed the only real legal way to impose gun control, and that is by constitutional amendment. If a proposal for just such an amendment passes through the process necessitated by the constitution, then more power to the populace that wants that.

Besides, what does religion have to do with the Second Amendment? Or even constitutional amendments? Talk about a classic red herring.

Don, I work at the University level. I'm glad for you that you think we are in" good hands".

I think we are in trouble. There are a lot to students today that don't have any type of a positive work ethic. They want a pay check for standing around.

I notice that you left out #5. ???

Roper

Any of you read Freakonomics? In the 1990's violent crime (across the board) was increasingly exponentially. Government from local to the President were freaking out. No one knew what to do. They passed gun control laws, ant-gang legislation, increased penalties, etc. Nothing worked. Experts predicted it was going to increase as much as 15% to 100% per year. The country was truly freaked. Then suddenly, without explanation and completely opposite all the experts predictions... it dropped. Not a little but by HUGE amounts and has (more-or-less) continued to drop ever since. Experts, wanting to expplain why they were so totally wrong said it was the new gun laws, innovative new policing techniques, other legislation, etc. But when the data was later analyzed it was shown theyw ere ALL wrong.

It turned out that the reason behind the down-turn had nothing to do with any of the alleged reasons. It was the result of a 21yo alcoholic, drug addict in Dallas named Norma McCorvey. You all know her as Roe (as in Roe v Wade). Her lawsuit in 1970 to get an abortion led to making that option available to poor, economically and socially deprived women. And is it turned out, the vast majority of violent crimes were being perpetrated by children of exactly this demographic cohort. In the mid-90's the crime rate dropped precipitously exactly when the children of these mothers would have been reaching prime crime age. Since they had not beenm born the crimes didn't hapen.

The moral of the story? It IS the children. We're doing a crap job of raising our children. It isn't the guns. The guns have always been there. It's the creation of a disenfranchised, poorly parented slice of children across the country that are growing up to become violent criminals. Take all the guns away that you want. In the end it won't mean a damn thing. Fix the problem.

Originally posted by jtma508
The moral of the story? It IS the children. We're doing a crap job of raising our children. It isn't the guns. The guns have always been there. It's the creation of a disenfranchised, poorly parented slice of children across the country that are growing up to become violent criminals. Take all the guns away that you want. In the end it won't mean a damn thing. Fix the problem.

I'm not much of a poster on this site. Prefer to read more than type and debate. But I would have to agree with jtma on this issue. There have always been guns in the US right? What's with all the damn violence these days?

posted by Roper

I notice that you left out #5. ??? Roper [Edited by Don W]

Corrected #5) The Welfare State. I Disagree.

I say that because there is no such state that is not a welfare state. Welfare differs only by degree. Look around you. Where is there a state that is not a welfare state? Discounting those failed states in Africa, of course.

I use “welfare” state to contrast with its predecessor, the laissez faire state. I would not declare that either was pure or that some of both have not existed and continue to exist. But the overall measure is now welfare, replacing the former laissez faire. Just look at the First 100 Hours the Democrats have promised to enact. B43 is strangely silent, knowing he holds the final word in his veto pen.



[edit on 1/4/2007 by donwhite]

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
Do I detect a bit of hypocrisy here? Is the constitution only worth upholding when it supports your opinion?

well, i made my statement as a challenge to someone to back up their own statement
i'm not actually making a statement of my personal beliefs

and it's not like the "right" to bear arms isn't infringed already

the average person cannot own rpgs, howitzers, modern battle tanks, armed combat planes, and nuclear weapons, just to mention a few

is there any reason we should continue with this "right"?

To be nostalgic again, there was a time when a man kept his word. How many times have any of you or people you know have said " I'll call you back" or" I'll bring it right back" or "I'll pay you back"?

There is no honor in the USA/ world anymore. Sad! These attitudes leaves us with people that don't give a damn and will do anything to anybody.

It's a ME first culture. YMMV

Roper

posted by Roper

There is no honor in the USA or world anymore. Sad! These attitudes leave us with people that don't give a damn and will do anything to anybody. It's a ME first culture. Roper [Edited by Don W]

I’m only going to remind you of the late 1800s called the Gilded Age and the Roaring 20s that covered the decade. Greed run rampant in the first and aimless hedonistic self-indulgence in the second. Perhaps even more telling to me are the scraps of translations we have from ancient Egypt deciding daily life in the place of the pyramids. Those people were very much like ourselves without the technology.

I attribute the current conditions of society you are complaining about to two major influences:
1) reduction in the taxes paid by people of means. Our current Federal tax rates are creating a super-rich class who live in 5,000-10,000 square feet houses in secure gated communities with golf and pools, in short, after work, they are isolated from the rest of us . . the guy at Home Depot that was fired yet had managed to have a $210 million golden parachute. During WW2, the top tax bracket was 91%. People did not focus so much on making money. They worked more for making community.
2) the current Protestant mega-church culture which espouses a personal relationship with God and or Jesus. This personal god is a phenomenon the began in the US around 1800 and exploded in the 1920s. It turns everyone inward to the selfish goal of his or her own salvation whereas before that, people were group oriented and God meant to be true to others. The “Ask Jesus into Your Heart” movement is killing our culture.


[edit on 1/5/2007 by donwhite]

There will always be a reason to kill people. While recreational drugs are a critical part of gang structure, there is also "rent", hard drugs, illegal guns (used for armed crime as well as fighting over drug turf), etc etc. Organized crime was here before drugs were anywhere near the problem they have become.

We have to deal with the guns.

The second amendment does not protect the right to carry a gun with the intent to commit a crime. There is ample room to establish criminal intent and prosecute the criminal, not the gun.

The law can make carrying a concealed handgun evidence of intent to commit assault with a deadly weapon- end of problem.

A guy has the right to own a weapon, he has the right to safely bear it in practice, legally defined, self defense, etc... but if you're running around town with a live weapon in your waistband it doesn't take a detective to figure out what you're up to and you can and should be arrested. That's no affront to the 2nd.

Our current laws on probable cause and concealed weapons are adequate to a large portion of the problem (although I do not shut out the validity of debate on other possible measures) so why not equip local law enforcement to aggressively assert these laws and hold them accountable for doing so?

Originally posted by The Vagabond
... but if you're running around town with a live weapon in your waistband it doesn't take a detective to figure out what you're up to and you can and should be arrested. That's no affront to the 2nd.

I disagree. You just said that anyone carring a firearm is a criminal.

..the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Roper

I also disagree. Carrying concealed is a rather important aspect of carrying in public at all. If the 'bad guys' can easily see who they need to neutralize what's the point? Imagine if Air Marshalls had to carry their weapons openly or wear bright orange caps. It's the element of uncertainty that makes concealed carry so effective.

what's with this need for people to become some sort of hot-rod vigilantes when they have guns?

guns have 1 use
to kill

that's all they were made to do

sure, they can simply wound
but their purpose is to kill

they don't train people to shoot at arms and legs
they train people to aim at central body mass
where all the vitals but the brain are