Originally Posted by Weave

We had more guns and more states that have passed CCW laws in the last 20 years and the crime rate has plummeted to the lowest rate since the early 1960's. Seems more guns do equal less crime.....

Keep in mind, though, that decreasing crime rates are common in late-3Ts and 4Ts. It may be more generational than having anything to do with prevalence of guns.

Anyone have any data on how many people actually do buy guns after laws are changed? I've been thinking about something DebC said about not wanting her kids to go to a college that allowed gun ownership. It made me wonder, just how many kids would own guns, even if they had the right to.

There seems to be an odd perception that the minute gun laws are eased, that everyone runs out and buys one (or more). I know that's certainly not the case in Chicago, following the SC decision last year. There were a few people at first -- those that had always advocated for it -- but the vast majority of people have no desire to own one.

Originally Posted by Yorick's Skull

Not to say that there isn't a need to be on your toes in neighborhoods like that, but I'm imagining the scene after you left and the guys hanging at the corner bursting out laughing. I'm seriously not naking fun of your fears, fear by thier definition are irrational and the animal part of the brain takes over; but in all actuality you might have over reacted.
Again, nothing but love for ya.

Or, Amy, you were in one of those cities where you can literally turn a corner and be in the "wrong" neighborhood. Chicago has a couple of areas like that, as does New York. Or, as Yorick said, it could just have been a few guys hanging out who lit the trash to stay warm or have some light.

Originally Posted by Xer H

Or, Amy, you were in one of those cities where you can literally turn a corner and be in the "wrong" neighborhood. Chicago has a couple of areas like that, as does New York. Or, as Yorick said, it could just have been a few guys hanging out who lit the trash to stay warm or have some light.

Chicago is most definitely one of those places. I actually took a wrong exit off the interstate and ended up somewhere on the south side. (And for the record, they weren't trying to keep warm. It was in the middle of summer time.) But for a while I did live in a predominately Puerto Rican neighborhood, and I was all too familiar with the guys who hung out on the street corner. Every night when I would walk home from the train stop to my apartment there were always a few of them who would make their little cat calls at me, but I wasn't really afraid of them. I was really more just annoyed by them. There was another guy in the group (I think he was fireman) who would always stick up for me and tell the others to leave me alone. One day his wife or girlfriend came out and yelled at me to leave "her man" alone as he was defending me. I remember thinking, "What the hell? I'm just minding my own business, walking home from work and now I'm in the middle of some kind of domestic fight." Being raised in small town America, it was a bit surreal to me.

Originally Posted by ASB65

Chicago is most definitely one of those places. I actually took a wrong exit off the interstate and ended up somewhere on the south side. (And for the record, they weren't trying to keep warm. It was in the middle of summer time.)

I wondered about that when I wrote it! Then all the better you got out of there... chances are, they might have approached your car to see if you wanted to buy drugs.

Well, I have to tell you that I had all kinds of bizarre things that happened to me while living in Chicago and it was a real culture shock for me coming from small town America. Here is another story that sticks out in my mind...

So I lived a building called a 6 flat. It was a 3 story with 2 apartments on each side. I lived on the middle floor. One night about 2 am I was awaken to sounds of yelling, screaming and banging coming from the apartment above mine. I didn't call the police but apparently someone else in the building did, because before long two cops came and knocked on my apartment door. I opened the door and gestured upward with my finger and said, "You need to go one more floor up." Then I closed the door. About 10 or 15 minutes later the cops came back and knocked on my apartment door. One them asks me if I'm single and would I be interested in going out with him? He then proceeds to hand me his card and tells me to call him. I'm standing there thinking, "Aren't you guys suppose be protecting and serving? Not trying to pick up chics at 2 o'clock in the morning?" Unbelievable. ...Needless to say, I never called him.

Now I will say that I did enjoy living in Chicago. I was young and single and had a lot of fun. I wouldn't trade those two years that I lived in Chicago for anything. But like I said in another thread, at this point in my life, I have no desire to live in a city. I prefer the simple, small town live instead.

Originally Posted by Poodle

We've got a culture where it is difficult to admit failure, or back down without loss of face (borderer warrior culture/Born Fighting). This is also why everyone must demonstrate religiosity.

Add to that, the "no second chance" ethos of powerful organizations fits in.

For the rustler or highwayman, death is always a companion. One can be killed by a rival, by bounty hunters or law-enforcement officers whose adherence to Wanted: Dead or Alive practice makes them quick with a trigger, or by the hangman. It's not good for developing any ethical standard other than survival at any cost, and in view of what one does for a living (even if one is a "legitimate" enforcer of the formal elite, one needs a religion that offers cheap grace.

Add to that the attitude of the "gentleman planter" who seeks to live as much as possible like an aristocrat on the toil of workers who have no real choice, who believes that his own enrichment and pampering is the sole determiner of the public welfare, who sees workers as expendable cogs in a heartless machine, and for whom a word like principle implies a rigid enforcement of social hierarchy above all else.

Originally Posted by Xer H

Or, Amy, you were in one of those cities where you can literally turn a corner and be in the "wrong" neighborhood. Chicago has a couple of areas like that, as does New York. Or, as Yorick said, it could just have been a few guys hanging out who lit the trash to stay warm or have some light.

That is also any small town in the Midwest. In the South that is the railroad tracks that divide where people of 'good breeding and conduct' (whatever that means other than being more prosperous) separate themselves from the 'white trash', whatever that means.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

That is also any small town in the Midwest. In the South that is the railroad tracks that divide where people of 'good breeding and conduct' (whatever that means other than being more prosperous) separate themselves from the 'white trash', whatever that means.

They had that in Weston, Massachusetts back in the 1930s and 40s, when my mom was growing up. My mom was on the "wrong side of the tracks" and made it her goal to get on the "right side".

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

That is also any small town in the Midwest. In the South that is the railroad tracks that divide where people of 'good breeding and conduct' (whatever that means other than being more prosperous) separate themselves from the 'white trash', whatever that means.

In the south they often divided the black and white sections. My son lived for two years in Indianola, Mississippi, and he pointed out to me that although they had no railroad tracks, they had a Railroad Avenue--and it performed exactly that function.

To those posters who argue that rightwingers and gun nuts are not trying to incite political violence, including violence against the President of the US, I offer the following link.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

That is also any small town in the Midwest. In the South that is the railroad tracks that divide where people of 'good breeding and conduct' (whatever that means other than being more prosperous) separate themselves from the 'white trash', whatever that means.

I'm not saying there isn't some divide in smaller communities in the midwest or in the south. And I have noticed a bit more of divide in the town that live here in Texas than what there was in the small midwestern town I grew up in. But I think the divide here is more ethnic. We have a pretty good size population of legal (and probably illegal) Mexican immigrants here. The dividing line in this town is the highway. The west side of the highway is concerned "the good side" of town while the east side is considered the "poor side" and that's where most of the hispanic people live. Now I do have several friends (non-hispanic, BTW) who live on the east side of town and they don't feel like they are living in dangerous area.

In my hometown in the midwest, there was a section of town in the older part of town that would be considered the "poor" side of town. The houses were old and not kept up very well. But here again, had I have lived on one of those streets, I may not have had some of the same values as some of neighbors (like the importance of my getting a college degree), but I wouldn't have been afraid for my kids to play outside unattended or have felt unsafe in anyway. Plus my son would have gotten the same education at the grade school in that area of town that he was getting at the grade school he attended.

I think the contrast between the poor and middle class intercity neighborhoods of big cities is much starker than in small towns.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

In the south they often divided the black and white sections. My son lived for two years in Indianola, Mississippi, and he pointed out to me that although they had no railroad tracks, they had a Railroad Avenue--and it performed exactly that function.

Maybe North Carolina and Atlanta are more progressive because that doesn't seem to have been the case here, over the last 10 years.

I have noticed more whites moving in more urban and older neighborhoods, where blacks use to live. Thats the big thing here now and was in Philly when I left. Come to think of it, I noticed more segregated neighborhoods up there, then here. Everyone would refer to that as the Jewish neighborhood, or the cambodian neighborhood...over there are the Jamaicans. This street belongs to the whites...but just the trailer type. No the good whites live in Northeast and so on and so on....

If anything there are areas where more hispanics live, like in East Charlotte. But you can't say that for the whole side.

Originally Posted by Odin

One reason a lot of folks in rural areas are armed:

It takes a while for the cops (usually a sheriff's deputy) to arrive. It pays to be able to defend oneself.

Thanks for making this point. Having lived in both the city and rural areas I can say that this is true in the city as well. With the added benefit that the Portland police tend to overreact to situations.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

In the south they often divided the black and white sections. My son lived for two years in Indianola, Mississippi, and he pointed out to me that although they had no railroad tracks, they had a Railroad Avenue--and it performed exactly that function.

I think we are divided by ethnic groups and neighborhoods in probably just about city in the country. In cities like New York or Chicago even the white neighbors are broken down between ethnic groups like Italian, Irish, Polish and so on. Like jadams pointed out, we are not one people in this country. We are tribes. There is only town ever lived in where there was a mix of ethnic groups and where neighbors weren't broken down by ethnic or race and people lived side by side through out the entire town. That was in Alaska. But in Alaska, white people are probably the minority since I believe the Native Americans are probably the largest portion of the population (broken down by tribes, of course.)

The other reason you probably didn't have a split in neighborhoods is that there just wasn't a lot of new construction and you didn't really have a lot of choice as where you were going to live. When we bought our house in Juneau, the vacancy rate was less 1% and there were only 3 houses for sale in our price range in the entire town. You just couldn't be that picky.

Hey, maybe that's the solution. Just stop building new homes and stop the urban sprawl. Instead we live with what we already have. Buy an old house and fix it up. The developers wouldn't like it that much, but maybe if we had limited choices, we would be more integrated. Just a thought.

Originally Posted by Yorick's Skull

Not to say that there isn't a need to be on your toes in neighborhoods like that, but I'm imagining the scene after you left and the guys hanging at the corner bursting out laughing. I'm seriously not naking fun of your fears, fear by thier definition are irrational and the animal part of the brain takes over; but in all actuality you might have over reacted.
Again, nothing but love for ya.

Can't speak for you, Yorick, but I'm with Amy on this one. Idle young men in groups scare me, at least if I'm alone on the street with them. I'm all too aware of the harm they could do if they were so inclined, and that there are those who are so inclined.

And I am small, not physically strong nor trained in self-defense, and I don't carry a gun. Wouldn't know where to begin to use one. So I watch myself and my surroundings.

I'm sure a number of people who are physically weaker than the streetcorner guys would agree.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

And I am small, not physically strong nor trained in self-defense, and I don't carry a gun. Wouldn't know where to begin to use one. So I watch myself and my surroundings.

.

And you call yourself an American? Sorry, couldn't resist.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Can't speak for you, Yorick, but I'm with Amy on this one. Idle young men in groups scare me, at least if I'm alone on the street with them. I'm all too aware of the harm they could do if they were so inclined, and that there are those who are so inclined.

And I am small, not physically strong nor trained in self-defense, and I don't carry a gun. Wouldn't know where to begin to use one. So I watch myself and my surroundings.

I'm sure a number of people who are physically weaker than the streetcorner guys would agree.

See Pat, this is one of the difference between men and women. I know exactly what you are saying and the harm they could do to me would not necessarily be shooting or robbing me. As a matter of fact, those things are not the first thing that comes to mind. Men don't worry about being ganged raped. It happens to women all the time and most times there aren't any weapons involved. But as a woman, it's always on your radar.

Originally Posted by ASB65

See Pat, this is one of the difference between men and women. I know exactly what you are saying and the harm they could do to me would not necessarily be shooting or robbing me. As a matter of fact, those things are not the first thing that comes to mind. Men don't worry about being ganged raped. It happens to women all the time and most times there aren't any weapons involved. But as a woman, it's always on your radar.

We do, however, worry about it happening to our female friends and family members. If I ever have daughters, Amy... kung fu lessons will start when they enter kindergarten. For that matter, martial arts would give sons the confidence they'll need defend themselves, their sisters and future families... so they'll get lessons too.

Originally Posted by ASB65

I think we are divided by ethnic groups and neighborhoods in probably just about city in the country. In cities like New York or Chicago even the white neighbors are broken down between ethnic groups like Italian, Irish, Polish and so on. Like jadams pointed out, we are not one people in this country. We are tribes. There is only town ever lived in where there was a mix of ethnic groups and where neighbors weren't broken down by ethnic or race and people lived side by side through out the entire town. That was in Alaska. But in Alaska, white people are probably the minority since I believe the Native Americans are probably the largest portion of the population (broken down by tribes, of course.)

The other reason you probably didn't have a split in neighborhoods is that there just wasn't a lot of new construction and you didn't really have a lot of choice as where you were going to live. When we bought our house in Juneau, the vacancy rate was less 1% and there were only 3 houses for sale in our price range in the entire town. You just couldn't be that picky.

Hey, maybe that's the solution. Just stop building new homes and stop the urban sprawl. Instead we live with what we already have. Buy an old house and fix it up. The developers wouldn't like it that much, but maybe if we had limited choices, we would be more integrated. Just a thought.

The Pacific Northwest is a lot less like that then the Northeast, and certainly far less so than the South.

In Seattle and Portland, only the poorest Asian, Hispanic and African-American residents self-segregate into their own little corners of town... the middle-class majority are spread out around the cities and their suburbs in no particular area.

Vancouver, where I live, is even less so... there are literally NO predominately-minority sections of town at all. In fact, their is only one ethnic grouping here in the 'Couv that seems to function tribally at all: Russians and Eastern Europeans, who tend to live in the East Vancouver/Cascade Park area. Most of these people have only recently moved here in the last twenty years... and my guess their kids will eventually spread out like everyone else.

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

The Pacific Northwest is a lot less like that then the Northeast, and certainly far less so than the South.

In Seattle and Portland, only the poorest Asian, Hispanic and African-American residents self-segregate into their own little corners of town... the middle-class majority are spread out around the cities and their suburbs in no particular area.

Vancouver, where I live, is even less so... there are literally NO predominately-minority sections of town at all. In fact, their is only one ethnic grouping here in the 'Couv that seems to function tribally at all: Russians and Eastern Europeans, who tend to live in the East Vancouver/Cascade Park area. Most of these people have only recently moved here in the last twenty years... and my guess their kids will eventually spread out like everyone else.

That is very interesting. Maybe people in the Pacific Northwest really are more open minded than the rest of the country. My husband who was born in Oregon and spent some of his childhood in Oregon and the rest of it in Alaska, insists that he never really witnessed any prejudice when he was growing up. I always found that so hard to believe. When Obama won on election night I was so overcome with pride and emotion that I just started crying. My husband looked over at me and said, "OMG, you are crying?" I said, "Yes, I just never thought I'd see this happen. That a black man could actually be elected president in our country." He just looked at me and said very matter of factly, "Really? I always figured it would happen."

Krugman of the NY Times again tells a A Tale of Two Moralities. For discussion purposes...

In a way, politics as a whole now resembles the longstanding politics of abortion — a subject that puts fundamental values at odds, in which each side believes that the other side is morally in the wrong. Almost 38 years have passed since Roe v. Wade, and this dispute is no closer to resolution.

Yet we have, for the most part, managed to agree on certain ground rules in the abortion controversy: it’s acceptable to express your opinion and to criticize the other side, but it’s not acceptable either to engage in violence or to encourage others to do so.

What we need now is an extension of those ground rules to the wider national debate.

Right now, each side in that debate passionately believes that the other side is wrong. And it’s all right for them to say that. What’s not acceptable is the kind of violence and eliminationist rhetoric encouraging violence that has become all too common these past two years.

It’s not enough to appeal to the better angels of our nature. We need to have leaders of both parties — or Mr. Obama alone if necessary — declare that both violence and any language hinting at the acceptability of violence are out of bounds. We all want reconciliation, but the road to that goal begins with an agreement that our differences will be settled by the rule of law.

There is nothing terribly new in any of the above. It is just said a little clearer and more succinctly than most. Not all will agree to rule of law. Some think their values worth fighting for, and others will use hints of violence to increase their influence and status.

The Anti-Gun Culture: Irresponsible, Phobia-Driven and Just Plain Wrong on the Facts

​The one thing you find in the debate about gun control is that there really is a gun culture. And an anti-gun culture.

The anti-gun culture probably is never going to agree with the gun culture, because the two cannot see eye to eye.

The people on one side owns guns. They've fired guns. They understand how guns feel, how they work, what they can and can't do. They know from experience that a gun, properly stored and handled, isn't dangerous.

The other side: Sort of metrosexual. Unwilling to take their own security seriously. The anti-gun culture doesn't fear guns in the way that members of the gun culture fear guns. Their fear is more irrational, phobic - almost superstitious, as if the very presence of guns invites death.

​
People who don't own or know much about guns -- we imagine that these are often the same type of people who, during a sudden electricity blackout, are initially baffled about what to do. They may not have fire extinguishers in their homes, or, if they do, they're so buried behind stuff in a cabinet that they'd be useless in a fire.

Stereotyping? Well, sure -- but to someone of the gun culture, it's inconceivable that some people can claim that they're prepared for emergencies -- and not own a gun.

It's a cultural disconnect.

People who eschew guns completely, who don't even keep them in their homes for self-defense, have abdicated their responsibility to themselves and their families. Perhaps they don't believe the truth of one of our favorite snarky sayings: When seconds count, police are minutes away.

The anti-gun culture has trouble with the fact that that guns sometimes save lives. Gun-control advocate and New Times writer Stephen Lemons tells me he's never a needed a gun, as if that proves something. But the gun culture always sees the need. I see it.

Back in the 1990s, a woman I knew from college shot and killed an intruder in her home.

The intruder had been released from prison a couple of months before, having served 14 years. He'd been convicted of breaking into a couple's home, tying up the husband, raping the wife, and burglarizing the place. A few weeks later, my friend and her fiance found the ex-con hiding in the closet of their Mesa home -- and managed to blow him away after a struggle.

I'll never forget what my friend told me afterward: You may believe in guns, she said, but you never want to go through something like that. She'd had nightmares, anxiety attacks, and pangs of guilt in the weeks following. Knowing this woman and hearing of her experience first-hand, (it also made the papers), taught me that it's foolish to be cavalier about the possibility of using a gun in self-defense.

But not to own a gun at all? Crazy.

The cultural divide explains a lot about the political viewpoints of either side. Naturally, the anti-gun culture wouldn't be concerned about restricting products they'd never buy or use. Of course someone like Lemons would think that banning a firearm accessory after a mass shooting "should be an obvious first step."

In fact, there's nothing "obvious" about such a proposal, if you're not on the anti-gun side. This wasn't the first shooting spree, and it won't be the last. What's "obvious" to the gun culture is that if we mandate a restriction or prohibition after each incident, eventually there'll be nothing left to restrict.

Lemons writes today that I and too many of my "gun-lovin' compatriots" seem to favor no restrictions on gun ownership. Speaking for myself, it's not true. It seems prudent to require a federal firearms license for fully automatic machine guns and to perform computerized background checks at gun stores. It's only reasonable that if you're in an establishment that serves alcohol and you're packing heat, the state prohibits you from drinking. The state should be required to submit information about severely mentally ill people to the federal background-check system.
​
Lemons, perhaps because he's so ingrained in the anti-gun culture, makes another mistake in comparing the danger of cars to guns in the United States. He quotes a Center for Disease Control and Prevention stat from 2007 that says firearm deaths for 2007 totaled 31,224, which he points out is not too far off from the motor vehicle body count that year of 44,128.

Problem is, his stat includes suicides, which was 56 percent of the total. Without minimizing the 12,000-plus firearms-related homicides or the 613 accidental fatal shootings, Lemons' argument suffers a breakdown when you subtract the suicides. Then, it's about 4.55 per 100,000 for firearms deaths compared to 14.63 for motor vehicles.

If drivers were required to get the same amount of training as gun buyers - that is, zero training - it's a no-brainer that the road carnage would be even worse.

Lemons takes the position that since New York state has only one-third the firearms-related deaths (including the suicides) as Arizona, its gun control laws must be working. His analysis is flawed.

Looking at the 2009 FBI stats for murder, (which discounts the suicides), you find that Arizona has a 5.4 per 100,000 murder rate compared to New York state's lower 4.0.

New York ranks 6th in the Brady Campaign's 2009 scorecard, while Arizona ranks the 6th lowest. So far, his thesis holds up. The problem reveals itself when you compare other states.

California, which ranks No. 1 on the Brady scorecard, had a 2009 murder rate of 5.3 per 100,000, nearly the same as Arizona's. Maryland, the 5th best on the Brady scorecard, has a murder rate of 7.7.

Meanwhile, Idaho and Utah, near the bottom of the scorecard, have murder rates of 1.4 and 1.3, respectively. North Dakota and Alaska, in the scorecard's bottom-10 states, also have lower murder rates than New York.

If anything, the stats show that gun control laws aren't necessarily effective, despite the limits they put on freedom. This is something the other side simply can't understand.

It is amazing, and reprehensible, that Arizona allowed this man to have a weapon of war. From what I hear, you need a license for almsst anything in AZ, except a deadly weapon. How sad that Americans never learn anything from these horrible tragedies, and never do a blessed thing about them. The victims have died in vain, andf many more such events will occur-- and soon. Stop mourning the dead-- and then persist with your gun mania. I wish America would wake up. People need to open their minds and see the truth. Guns kill, and that is their only purpose. It is NOT part of a "culture" that has any meaning, except a culture of death. At least, stop opposing reasonable gun control laws, as if there was something wrong with gun control.

Originally Posted by Odin

One reason a lot of folks in rural areas are armed:

It takes a while for the cops (usually a sheriff's deputy) to arrive. It pays to be able to defend oneself.

The same is true pretty much anywhere. The cops are not much help if you are a woman walking home from work and some creep tries to kidnap and rape you.

Then you should learn to lock your doors and alarm them. You are simply living in an armed camp, by using guns, instead of locking your doors.

You can't prevent all crimes, but if you have a decent police system, the criminals get put away. That's civilization, Relying on guns for self-defense is barbarism. But then, this is America. We have a lot to learn.

Originally Posted by Xer H

You can't rationally debate the issue with someone who is emotionally tied to believing that a vast majority of the country is the "Wild West" of old Hollywood's making instead of what it really is. And refuses to even consider the truth of the matter.

You guys have made it into the Wild West with your gun culture and refusal to control it. I honestly don't understand what else you could call it. The majority vote for ignorant folks with wild west mentality to represent you, and you all have and carry guns. What else could you call it, for Christ's sakes?