mead cohen berger shevtsova garfinkle michta grygiel blankenhorn
Guns in America
Gun Control: More Racial Disparities Than the Drug War
Features Icon
Features
show comments
  • Nevis07

    I can accept the concept of some restriction laws, but only up to a point. And before we as a country get to that point, what I’d like to see is laws aimed having to do with mental health restrictions. The left needs to also accept that the increasing amounts of violence and adult themed media content has over the decades has chipped away at core family values, which I also thing is a big factor in less stable criminal types who are able to get their hands on guns. But the central point made above ultimately is correct – the only way you’re really going to stop gun-related deaths is to enact European style restrictions and that’s never going to happen (without some sort of civil war). My concern is that we enact one restriction law after another and there’s yet another mass shooting (because we all know there will be) because at the end of the day if someone wants to go on a killing spree, they’ll find a way. It becomes a slippery slope enacting these type of laws.

    • Simpatica

      “mental health” is a slippery concept. Care to define it in operational way? Remember how people in the old S.Union were put in mental hospitals? I do not think this is an impossible task but it will be very hard.

  • alanstorm

    “Most socially liberal gun control champions don’t see themselves as
    pushing policies that would abet racial profiling or worsen the problem
    of mass incarceration.”

    That’s because on this, as on every other subject, they have no interest in whether their policies actually work. Good Intentions are all that counts. Even when shown evidence that their plans aren’t accomplishing anything meaningful – as in Head Start and the so-called “assault weapons ban” – they will defend these types of programs to the death.

    • viperpsyche

      Just like prohibition, morally corrupt liberals push their sick morality!

  • Anthony

    Post brings to mind thought that there remains a constant battle for our minds and allegiances. In a country both awash in guns and with a historical cultural affair with gun possession, how does sober gun discussion (pro or con) take place (truth, validity, and soundness). The above exemplifies a stirring up of emotions by skirting real issue (our gun culture requires thought). That is by some notion and scope of logic, yesterday’s horrific tragedy becomes discussion on “Race” and “Guns” – another subtle opportunity for America’s unsettled “Dilemma” to buttress an argument perhaps based on fallacious relevance.

    • Peripatetic

      1) Tough-on-crime laws disproportionately affect racial minorities.
      2) Strict gun control laws will be a version of tough-on-crime laws.
      3) Thus, strict gun control laws will disproportionately affect racial minorities.

      Logically, the argument is both valid and sound.

      • Anthony

        Simply, validity refers to the correctness with which a conclusion infers from premises; equally, soundness (as I remember) results when premises of an argument are true and conclusion validly derives. You may recognize an argument but I don’t vis-a-vis gun issue and Oregon tragedy. And to avoid carrying this further, I choose to make distinction between “real disputes” and “verbal disputes” (a dispute is said to be real when one party believes that a certain statement is true while another party believes that a certain statement is false – a verbal dispute happens when one party believes that a certain statement is true while another party believes that another statement is false).

        We have a different view of what is at issue (verbal dispute). Thanks.

    • Boritz

      “thoughtful consideration and reflective debate”
      “a discussion/argument advantaged by truth, validity, and soundness”

      These are Tea Party tactics and frankly they don’t work worth a damn.

      • Anthony

        Try harder and don’t constrain.

  • johne843

    Liberals are more concerned about the inequities of non-violent drug sentencing, not unregistered gun sentencing. The nature of enforcement would be the thorny issue.

  • CaliforniaStark

    The vast majority of gun homicides in the United States are gang-related, and happen in large cities. The primarily victims are people of color. Someone referred to Chicago as the world’s largest outdoor shooting range. In one recent week, around 50 people were shot in Chicago; am curious what Obama did to address this problem when he was a community organizer? Gang killings often are done using “ghost guns” which are manufactured in a foreign country, like the Philippines, and imported into the U.S. They do not have serial numbers, and evade gun control laws. Agree with the article, “stop and frisk” was an effective police tactic to counter gun violence in urban areas; youth curfews are another tool.

    As far as the Oregon shooting, the best protection is a good guy with a gun. Appalachian State Law School in 2002; Trolley Barn Square Mall in Salt Lake City in 2007; and a Clackamas Mall, Oregon in 2012, were examples of armed citizens immediately engaged potential mass shooters, and preventing more people being shoot. Declaring an area a “gun-free” zone is like hanging a target on it. We saw what happens to an unarmed police officer in the Paris shootings earlier this year.

    • Angel Martin

      USA victims of mass shootings since January = 1464

      victims of shooting in the city of Chicago since January = 2342

      http://shootingtracker.com/wiki/Mass_Shootings_in_2015
      http://crime.chicagotribune.com/chicago/shootings

      • CaliforniaStark

        The situation in Chicago is intolerable. Chicago needs to enact the toughest, most restrictive gun laws in the nation; it will serve as a test case….oh wait…Chicago has already enacted them. Maybe the problem is criminals ignore gun laws and don’t register their firearms.

  • circleglider

    Depending upon one’s tribal affiliation, disparate impact is an underappreciated bug or feature of modern gun control policies.

    Yet the elephant in the room is the near-jihadic dream of transforming the United States into a Nordic welfare utopia like Denmark, Sweden — or, in the case of gun politics — Australia. And in the case of guns, it presents as a religious belief that they are absolute evil, and that fewer ones in civilian hands are an unalloyed good that will result in absolute harm reduction.

    Many of the counter-arguments to these dreams revolve around practical implementation details. Few, if any, are willing to squarely address the bedrock assumption: would the United States be a healthier and happier country if guns could be banished?

    The answer is no. Any attempt to radically reduce civilian gun ownership in a nation as large and diverse as the U.S. would result in widespread carnage — and not because of the difficulties associated with confiscating those guns. A U.S. where guns were far rarer (they could never be eliminated completely) would be far more violent and torn with predation. It would look much more like today’s Russia than Sweden (or Australia or Japan).

    Puritan New England, with its townhall participatory democracy and tight-knit egalitarian communities, was only one of America’s founding cultures. We have already fought one civil war in an attempt to impose its monoculture onto the rest of the Nation. Let us not make that mistake again.

    • Anthony

      “Few, if any, are willing to squarely address the bedrock assumption….” Quite an extrapolation given that nowhere in North America has banishment (restricting yes, complete banishment, no) been proposed. On the other hand given emotive issue, correct reasoning and appropriate formulation are not always cornerstones by which propositions assert.

      “Like many parents, I suspect, my first reaction to the news of the shootings at Umpqua Community College, in Oregon, on Thursday was to think of the families of the victims, and my second was to turn away and mutter some obscenities. With the implacable grip that the gun lobby has on Congress, there is virtually no prospect of the United States following the example of nearly every other advance country and restricting the supply of deadly firearms to civilians. Given that seemingly immutable reality, what is there left to say” (within nature and scope of logic)?

      • circleglider

        In his second term, President Obama has called for “banishment” and the abolition of civilian gun possession by repeatedly invoking Australia and the U.K. as “models” that the U.S. must follow.

        Congress’ wise choice to not send our nation into ruin is not driven by the “gun lobby” (which “lobby,” in any case, would be the NSSF, not the NRA), but instead by the opinions of its members’ constituents.

        • Anthony

          Full disclosure, prior to this post this specific issue (guns and derivatives thereto) was not central interest of my daily comings and goings. That said, President Obama may call for any number of things but you know how our country governs. Quote contains gun lobby reference though my use of quote done to highlight current reality; which remains whether reader focuses on gun lobby or not. Complete text of quote is from New Yorker ( John Cassidy) – if interested.

    • Angel Martin

      the same people who tell us it is “impossible” to deport 11 million people are the ones who think they can confiscate 300 million guns.

      • J K Brown

        Well, confiscation would always be unConstitutional. So there would have to be fair market payment for the guns. Lets say average $750 per gun x 300 million. Now a good number of the guns run into the 10s of thousands of dollars. But still that is a quarter trillion dollars due on transfer…

      • Boritz

        And end cow flatulence.

  • Rick Johnson

    Don’t follow Australia’s approach. It has resulted in many justifiabily angry farmers and recreational shooters who have had their guns taken off them, but no real change in people being killed by guns. One of former Prime Minister John Howard’s biggest policy mistakes.

    • Cristina Ronaldo

      wrath of recreational shooters! Oh, my! Well, I am sure they can pick up some other hobby. Like reading.

      • Rick Johnson

        It’s their choice how they wish to spend their time, not yours.

        • Cristina Ronaldo

          if they want RPG, Anthrax, Tanks, mini nuclear device, who are we to judge? Lets ban books at least.

          • Angel Martin

            why don’t you tell us what your hobbies are? then we can judge if they are sufficiently worthy to allow you to continue to do them.

          • Cristina Ronaldo

            reading, biking, surfing, Scotch (legavulin), and reminding every bible thumping Jesus Freak about Evolution.

          • BorculoBob

            Cristina, you forgot to include being an obnoxious twit.

          • Cristina Ronaldo

            and rational twit. Happy

          • Rick Johnson

            Not to mention unhinged.

          • Angel Martin

            “reading, biking, surfing, Scotch…”

            i have long been an advocate of minimum age, waiting periods, mandatory training and registration for all cyclists.

            given the many injuries and deaths that cyclists suffer every year, reducing the public health effects of cycling injuries demands nothing less. and cyclists who ride safely have nothing to fear.

          • Cristina Ronaldo

            cycling doesn’t kill others. At least not mass killings and not 20 children at a time. I have no objection if gun owners kill themselves. In fact, I encourage it.

          • Angel Martin

            “I have no objection if gun nuts kill themselves. In fact, I encourage it.”

            !

          • Cristina Ronaldo

            !!? less nuts the better. Don’t you think even if you are not allergic to nuts.

  • FriendlyGoat

    Since incorporated entities are the makers and/or sellers of almost all new guns and ammunition, does it not follow that the route to less guns and a smaller gun culture runs through more thoughtful control of incorporated entities? Consider, first of all, that the Second Amendment was not written for paper entities whether traditional corporations or smaller less formal LLCs. Therefore, there cannot be any infringement of 2A rights by strictly limiting the ownership of guns (including as inventory for purposes of sale) by any entity OTHER THAN natural individuals (who do not have “limited liability”). This is maybe one approach no one is discussing. Why is it not possible to tell people they can “keep and bear arms”, even to the point of being in the gun business, but that paper entities cannot? That alone would shutter most of the gun sellers in America overnight and never infringe anyone’s 2A rights.

    Or, we could do as we are doing now and 1) admit that we seriously do not give a damn how many bullets collide with people in America, whether mass shootings, individual shootings or accidental shootings, 2) agree with conservatives (such as here) that is is better for young black men in say, Chicago, to have and use guns as they are now than it would be to chase any of them with law enforcement, 3) continue having our tax and fiscal policy decided by people who mostly ran for office on OTHER issues, such as 2A.

    • Angel Martin

      FG wrote: “2) agree with conservatives (such as here) that is is better for young black men in say, Chicago, to have and use guns as they are now than it would be to chase any of their guns with law enforcement,”

      all of the shootings in Chicago are already illegal. Why do additional gun control laws need to be passed before current law in Chicago is enforced ?

      • FriendlyGoat

        Wasn’t the point of this TAI article that we should not enact any new stricter gun laws because the enforcement of them would cause disproportionate incarceration of urban black people? I don’t think they are saying we shouldn’t try to make the shooting of people more illegal than it already is. I think they are saying we should not try to make it more illegal for potential urban shooters to have guns in the first place—– and then have more urban arrests for possession or illegal carrying of firearms. They did write this article for some reason, right?

        • gwjd

          Actually, the point was to note the contradiction between liberal opposition to policies such as harsh sentencing, the war on drugs, and “broken windows” policing, on the grounds that these policies disproportionately affect black urban males, and liberal support of strict anti-gun laws without considering how such laws would disproportionately affect urban black males.

          • FriendlyGoat

            In other words, blame liberals for why conservatives don’t want to do ANYTHING about the proliferation of guns.

          • gwjd

            The phrase “in other words” is the near-infallible signal that a straw man is about to be set up. So it is here. Of course your formulation is nonsense. Prof. Mead isn’t blaming liberals for what conservatives do or don’t do; if he’s blaming them for anything, it’s for their own intellectual inconsistency and resolute refusal to think things through. Sorry, no points this round, but thanks for playing.

          • FriendlyGoat

            When conservatives warn liberals that they had better not enact any new gun restrictions BECAUSE the enforcement of those would violate liberals beliefs’ about the disproportionate negative effect of arrest and sentencing on poor people and people of color—-the conservative “fix” is in. I get it. You don’t. This is conservatives trying to preempt any meaningful discussions about guns with a plot to put liberals into a box (and have a hoot at how clever they are at boxing in the liberals.) At least I’m calling it what it is.

            My original proposal above to stem the rise of guns via more sensible regulation of incorporated entities wouldn’t get a single black arrested, by the way.

          • gwjd

            When conservatives warn liberals that they had better not enact any new gun restrictions BECAUSE the enforcement of those would violate liberals beliefs’ about the disproportionate negative effect of arrest and sentencing on poor people and people of color—-the conservative “fix” is in.

            No fair! Those mean ol’ conservatives are pointing out our self- contradictions again! I’m tellin’! Mo-om!

          • FriendlyGoat

            Are you “Mo-om”? Did you not understand that it’s YOU who I told?

          • gwjd

            No, I’m the one you’re telling on.

          • FriendlyGoat

            You wrote the article?

          • Simpatica

            “wouldn’t get a single black arrested” or prevent a single gun death

    • Simpatica

      Why not go back to what was working = “stop and frisk”

  • globalista

    It’s easy for white suburban progressives to decree from the comfort of their safe community, “we need to go tough on gun laws and do whatever it takes to get them off the street.” Sadly, such attitudes not only disregard the structural racism inherent within gun laws, prosecutions, etc., but they ignore the very problem Ferguson and other communities have been raising regarding disparate crime and law enforcement.

    A black business owner in an urban community has a much greater need for licensed and legal guns to keep his person and business safe. The little police presence there is – which is almost always too little – is usually more interested in profit-making drug crimes and less interested in responding to that robbery call. It’s one thing for a white suburban Democrat to pretend that guns aren’t necessary for protection when they live in their posh gated community, but it’s a whole different matter in minority urban communities.

  • drk

    Even if more restrictions are put on gun ownership, people will still find a way to accomplish their goal. Although restrictions make it harder to obtain a gun, it is still possible. one solution to this problem, is give a gun to the good guy, to defend themselves and others against the bad guy, however I see why some might be apprehensive about this. The good guy could easily become the bad guy, and he would already be armed. I believe Mental Health screenings are really the only solution to this, not only when obtaining a gun, but periodically to ensure the safety of others. This idea is a solution, however just like other restrictions, people will find a way around it. Even if it doesnt get rid of all crime, hopefully it will decrease it, which would be a great success. This would affect those who use guns for recreational use, such as Hunters, but something needs to be done, and those people will be affected by any decisions made towards gun laws anyway

  • Forbes

    NYC had nearly 2,300 homicides in 1990, and then elected a Republican for two terms, followed by a Dem-turned-Rep-turned Independent who pursued a similar policy line, eventually leading to “stop, question & frisk,” reducing annual murders nearly 90% from 1990. The progressive-left hates SQF.SQF is gun control that removes illegal guns from he street, deters the carrying of illegal guns on the street, and locks up those that do carry illegally. The near-elimination of SQF concurrent with the rise in murder and other gun-crimes in NYC is a real world result of the deterrent effect of pro-active gun control (and lack thereof) with a criminal population that will not be deterred by another law or prohibition. But these are inconvenient facts, and will be ignored by the reality-based community.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2016 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service