Mario’s asking me for “some links to some oakland blogs on the street.” Something that “captures the block.” So here you go Mario:
This and other amazing citizen media from Oakland youth is available on Youth Radio. Learn more about Youth Radio here. And listen in on their music and radio features online.
If you ain’t squeezin’, then you’re gonna get squeezed on…
Get some camcorders and digital recorders in the hands of these youth, man! Thanks for the heads up on Youth Radio. It’s on the feed.
It’s interesting that the example the guy in the first video gave to show the difference from “east oakland” to “deep east oakland”, a presumably more crime infested neighborhood, is an example of even “a sweet old lady” having a handgun.
It always surprises me how surprising this is for people unfamiliar with the ghetto – I mean seriously, don’t you expect the demand for firearms among law abiding citizens to dramatically increase in the ghetto? I sure would.
This is one of the primary reasons why I am against gun control and consider it a limousine liberal fantasy. The real world, atleast the real world in the ghetto, is a world where guns really are used for protection. Gun control just takes guns away from the very people who need it most: law abiding citizens trying to protect themselves and their family.
I’ve gotta call out your red herring. Please point me to the proposal that is trying to take away handguns from little old ladies trying to protect themselves. And then please explain to me why the 2nd amendment proponents are against background checks and an assault rifle ban. Seems like they’re the ones who aren’t in touch with what’s going on in the ghetto.
“Gun control just takes guns away from the very people who need it most: law abiding citizens trying to protect themselves and their family.”
That’s a red herring. Law abiding citizens, as long as they’re willing to wait 7 days to pass a background check, have no problem getting handguns in this country. And if they do have a problem waiting 7 days, they can just go to a gun show and get one, no questions asked.
Also, I’m having trouble with your argument about Texas. If your focus is preventing gun violence, it makes no sense to make it easier for everyone to acquire guns just to impose stiffer penalties after the crime has been committed. Isn’t the damage already done? Shouldn’t we make the barrier to entry higher in order to prevent guns falling into the wrong hands in the first place? I won’t defend CA’s policies (mostly because I know nothing about them); if it’s true that people using illegal weapons in the commission of a violent crime are only given a slap on the wrist, I think that’s wrong.
(PS: I’d include references, but I suck at this technology thing and so couldn’t figure out how to include hyperlinks. I know, embarrassing).
I see you ignored my DC example. I also believe that alot of liberals, especially the limousine liberal variation, really desires to ban guns in the United States completely – even from law abiding citizens.
If your focus is preventing gun violence, it makes no sense to make it easier for everyone to acquire guns just to impose stiffer penalties after the crime has been committed.
A red herring if I ever saw one. 😉 Just to reiterate: my argument is not that we should make it easier for everyone to acquire handguns…my argument is to make it easier for law abiding citizens to acquire handguns while at the same time making it difficult for criminals, mentally disabled, emotional and generally dangerous people from acquiring handguns.
Regarding punishment: I am not just referring to punishing criminals after the fact, I am referring to punishment for simply illegally having a handgun. Just to give a personal example, when I was in my teens I lived in McCallen, Texas for a few months after living my whole life in the Los Angeles area and one of the biggest culture shocks to me was the relatively low gun ownership rate among the gangsters and criminals. Coming from the Los Angeles area, I was used to the metal detectors entering high school and the general fact that nearly every gangster, drug dealer and criminal personally owned a handgun (illegally, of course) and carried it with them often. In Texas, on the other hand, it was a big thing to carry a gun. Even in the bigger cities like Houston, gun violence usually ensued after several altercations where it was now your intent to commit a drive by and you were set on killing – similar to what goes on in LA when you are dealing with assault weapons.
The economics of this is easy to understand. If you get caught illegally in possession of a gun in California your crime is weeks in county jail at most (assuming you are not already a felon). In Texas it would likely result in significantly more time, even on a first offense, resulting in what could be years in prison. Under those circumstances, the calculus of the criminal in LA was easy to understand: they would rather carry a gun and take on the relatively minor risk and consequences of being caught by law enforcement in order to be ready for the much more severe chance of needing the gun in an altercation that could take their life. As my neighbors would tell me growing up in LA, “Its better to have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have it”.
My point in all of this is a system that more mirrors the Texas model vs the California model is likely to reduce crime and at the same time is more realistic and practical. It dramatically changes the criminal calculation and in the process gives those who most need guns, the law abiding citizen stuck in the ghetto, the ability to protect themselves – a basic desire that seems to escape limousine liberals asking for dramatic gun control laws.
Drive-by should be hyphenated.
How do you expect to determine with any reasonable accuracy whether someone is law-abiding or not without creating some threshold or burden of proof (ie: making it harder for EVERYONE to get guns)?
Texas has more gun homicides than 37 other states, many of which (including every state in that hotbed of limousine liberalism, New England) have what you would surely consider more lenient gun laws than Texas. So, it’s not clear to me that stricter gun possession laws prevent violent crime.
As for the DC case, I’m glad you could find ONE case with which to generalize the entire gun control movement. That’s 6 years old. And is the equivalent of a city ordinance. I think it’s safe to say that banning all handgun use is not the position of the vast majority of gun control lobbying groups in the country. From the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence Website FAQ (a leading gun control lobbying group):
Q: What is Brady doing right now to prevent gun violence?
Brady works on the federal and state level to protect sensible gun laws from being weakened, and to pass ones where they don’t exist. Our number one priority is to get illegal guns off our streets by:
1. Strengthening law enforcement tools to crack down on corrupt gun dealers.
2. Extending Brady background checks to all gun sales.
3. Stopping large-volume gun sales that supply gun traffickers.
Legislatively, we are also working toward renewing the Assault Weapons Ban; legislating product safety standards for gun manufacturers; and thwarting the plans of the NRA to weaken our nation’s and our state’s gun laws.
In addition to our work on gun laws, all Brady programs and departments are working to educate and advocate various constituencies on the dangers of gun violence. Read more about our specific programs and department.
Q. Is Brady a “gun ban” organization? Are you really just trying to make all guns illegal in America?
Brady believes that a safer America can be achieved without banning guns. Our stand is simple. We believe that law-abiding citizens should be able to buy and keep firearms. And we believe there are sensible gun laws that we can and should insist upon when it comes to gun ownership.
First and foremost, we should try to keep guns out of the hands of those who should not have them, including criminals and children.
Second, there are certain classes of weapons that should be out of bounds for private ownership. They include Saturday-night specials, which are used almost exclusively for crime, military-style assault weapons like Uzis and AK-47s, and .50-caliber sniper rifles, which serve no ordinary sporting purpose.
Third, we believe that those who do own guns ought to be held to the highest standards of safety. They should be well trained in the use of their weapons and they should be required to keep weapons secure, so that neither innocent children nor prohibited persons can get a hold of them.
glad to see fierce arguing on gun control.I don’t know what exactly happend in US,but i do know what happened in China.Our country forbid people without legal person to carry a gun,if you do this you will break the Criminal Law,which is a kind of felony.But gangsters may have gun via all kind of ways,even stealing,for example,saveral days ago,i read a news which said the guns owned by a military camp was stolen.
As a person who is major in Law, i like to talk with people on legal issue.And i want to say that Law is not omnipotent.Therefore,we can just value the weight of all kinds of legal interests,and make the comparaly right decision.So to be objective is very important,but we people ,what we said were quite subjective,and based on our personal experiences.Gun control is a very big problem,can happen in many places,so it’s not a problem which a law,or even a code can get it resolved.In my opinion,it needs relative legal apartments to collaborate and give a package solution:)