Aside from the vast disparity in the number of homicides in Milwaukee and Seattle, there is one more big difference. Washington residents can carry concealed handguns, and a lot of them do, more than 230,000 at last count.
It's an attractive thesis for gun owners. It would be easy to jump on the bandwagon and cry "See?"
The problem is, there are problems with it.
If you're going to claim concealed carry impacts the murder rate in Seattle (and I would argue it does, albeit to a much lesser degree than Workman attributes it), you need to factor the number of concealed handgun carriers in the specific population you're studying--in other words, don't use a statewide number. The 230,000 figure sounds impressive, but the state has a population of over 6 million, vs. Seattle's 571,500. If you're going to crunch numbers, you need to factor your carriers from that pool.
There's something else at work--another "big difference"--a HUGE "big difference"-- that impacts the raw murder number disparities between Milwaukee and Seattle, but there's a problem with even hinting at it--lest we be charged with the modern equivalent of being denounced a witch. We can find this "big difference" in every major urban area in the country--the places where guns are invariably controlled and the murder rate cannot be.
At the risk of being branded classist, ageist, sexist, and the dreaded "r" word... uhh, s'cuse me... could someone please look at the demographic differences between Seattle and Milwaukee?
Sorry, Mr. Workman, but the cities do not share "roughly the same...social makeup." Just look at the comparison between "female householders, no husband present" (8.09% vs. 21.07%). And we also can't forget to look at race--not as a cause of violent crime, but as an indicator of populations most directly affected by and responsive to a continuing history of destructive government policies.
If we're afraid to even address this, we're never going to be able to make things right. And those hurt the most by this self-imposed blindness will continue to be the least prosperous and protected among us.
I would add that a truly honest argument over whether or not citizens of this country should be able to own and carry (or say, keep and bear) arms should be confined to the real issues. My Right to self-defense is not predicated on statistics. Rather, I have a basic right to self-defense absolutely regardless of any city's/area's murder rate. I don't care how concealed carry or general gun ownership impacts anything. I am a human being, therefore I have the right to defend myself, those I love and my property. Any argument for gun rights based on anything else is a huge mistake for our side.
ReplyDeleteBut the problem is, most of the urban crime is committed by low-IQ young inner-city males. That includes a majority of the so-called "gun violence". But while these urban underclass males commit a HUGE portion of the violent crime involving guns, guess who gets blamed for it: suburban and rural middle-class and working-class law-abiding caucasian males who happen to own guns and belong to organizations such as the NRA. Go to secondamendment.net to learn about the Elephant in the Room.
ReplyDeleteSorry, Anonymous, but not buying into your entire thesis.
ReplyDeleteI don't claim to know all the answers but I can usually identify ones that are not accurate.
"Racially Conscious" is just another term for hatred based upon skin color.
Hunchback, you're ignoring major data on what anonymous argues. Do some research. To bring up the fact that a hugh number of gun crimes committed are done in urban areas, by minorities does not mean it is "hatred based upon skin color." Why do libs, when they can't win an argument resort to name calling? Check statistics out. If you take away all gun crimes done by young minority males in the inner city a large chunk of the overall gun crime numbers are taken away. Is that racially motivated to speak a truth like that? Rather than accuse of being racially motivated based on the qouting of facts, why aren't the libs that are the political powers in these high crime areas actually doing something real to solve these problems? (most of which are due to the total breakdown of the family unit in urban areas).
ReplyDeleteQuit calling names and actually be a part of the solution. The solution is not taking my gun rights away from me and hindering my ability to protect my family and my property!
You can focus on race without being racist, let's face it: minorities are overly represented in the "victim" demographic. Disarming these people is what is racist.
ReplyDeletePlaces with strict gun control are almost invariably places which harbor a lot of African Americans (DC, LA, NYC ...) who also constitute a disproportionately large section of violent crime victims in those regions.
It's called victim disarment for a reason.