Comments

1
Every hour is wrong. Unless there are only 20 hours in a day.

And, I'm surprised at you, Chaz. Getting in on the Goldy troll wagon without acknowledging that at least 70% of gun injuries among humans aged 0-19 are from black makes between 15-19, and that this potentially points to a problem in gang violence. Where guns are always procured legally, right?
2
@1 Troll wagon? Charles has been writing about the "Gun Crazy Country" for a long time now.

Also, race baiting, classy!
3
America does not have a gun problem. More than ever, this new study shows that America has a race problem. Sure, you can fling around the word "racist" like poop, but it only means you're in a state of denial. Any attempt to solve this country's problems with violence of any kind must address the underlying issues. Guns, per se, are only one small piece of the puzzle.
4
@3 What's the race problem? You mention it but don't offer any meaning of what you say, so I'm left to infer one way or the other.

America has a poverty problem. Institutional racism is exposed in the disparity of how poverty is distributed. People born into poverty with little opportunity for advancement can often migrate to a life of crime to survive, either culturally or literally.

However, this is all beside the point. The issue here is irresponsible gun ownership that allows small children around unsecured loaded guns. That isn't an issue or race, poverty, or anything other than stupidity and negligence on the part of the gun owner/parents.
5
@3 That's minimizing how guns leave people dead and imprisoned. Are you honestly suggesting we ignore that until racism and inequality are no more? We might be waiting a very long time. If you want to stall, fine, but don't pretend otherwise.
6
@5: don't you know know that we have to fix both america's mental health system AND poverty before we can look at gun violence? otherwise we're just treating the symptoms.

i'm sure this congress will get right on funding fixes to our mental health system and wealth inequality.

benghazi.
8
@5, you're never going to "fix" Anything that concerns guns, because: 1) your "solutions" will only affect honest, law-abiding, non-crazy people; 2) the second amendment severely limits any changes that can be made; and 3) the vast majority of Americans support gun ownership. So yeah, let's stop wasting time talking about guns and try to do something that might actually make a difference.
9
@2 Saying that we still have a gang problem isn't race baiting. Stating that at least 70% of firearm-related injuries among children and adolescents falls within the demographic of 15-19 year old black males isn't race baiting. I'm not saying that it's because they're black that there's a problem.

I'm saying that there is still a problem with gang violence in our culture. Saying that gang violence should be addressed for the safety of our youth is not race baiting. It's addressing something that we're blindly ignoring in the name of being Politically Correct.
10
@4 P.S. You use the term small children. Only 15% of the victims in the study are 14 or under. Or, 3 a day.

What do you consider "small children?"
11
Repeat the same experiment with an open beer, a Playboy magazine (they still print those, right?), a pack of cigarettes, or a book of matches and I'd bet the percentages are pretty close to the result of the gun as well. Line them all up near a swimming pool and by the end of the day several of these elementary school kids will have found their way into it (pushing or otherwise). Young kids, they're curious and don't comprehend consequences well.
12
@4
"The issue here is irresponsible gun ownership that allows small children around unsecured loaded guns."

No. Because the statistics used to justify that do not apply unless you define "small children" as "black teens 15 - 19".
A black teen who is shot by a gang because he is walking on the wrong block is not the same as a toddler who finds a loaded gun at his friend's home.
And claiming that they can both be mitigated by asking if there are any guns around is not accurate.
13
Yup, the more the pressure is on, the more the gun fetish death cult reveals itself as a white supremacy movement. Laws like SYG are meant as laws for whites to kill blacks with impunity.

Of course, the underlying logic of their views is revealed here. They want to use the apparent larger percentage of our black kids who are harmed by guns as a smoke screen to get parents of white and other minority kids to keep sacrificing their kids on their death cult alters in ever increasing numbers.

The, apparently white, Stranger reader is supposed to join with them in their racism out of fear of losing social dominance and thereby accept all their NRA Gun Fetish Death Cult propaganda. *The flow of guns from factory to the street must not be hindered!!*
14
@13 Appropriate moniker.
15
@13 nails it. @14 deflects with name-calling because his racism is not defensible.
16
Cracked, and with an extremely vivid imagination to boot. Talk about conspiracy theories. He could make the birthers and the truthers look sane.
17
@1: You could make the same point -- that a large percentage of these incidents do not involve small children (as the story implies) but rather young men 15-19 -- without injecting race.

18
@17: It would be interesting to see what role race plays in the classifying of 15-19 year olds as "young children" though.

For example, is a black youth accused of a crime more likely to be considered an "adult" than a white youth? What about the victim? Does the manner of the crime matter? It does seem as if young victims of gun violence are often called "children" despite what age they actually are.

We saw this played out during the Trayvon Martin case: to hardline liberals he was cast as a child, to hardline conservatives he was an adult. The truth of course, was in the middle.

Would that be the same if Trayvon was white?
19
@15 I think the real racists are the ones who refuse to acknowledge the plight of gang violence.

It's the liberal death cult that chooses to ignore problems that disproportionately affects a minority out of a sense of enlightened tolerance.

"Ignore the gangs!" these bleeding heart morons cry, "don't you know you can't address inner city problems?" Meanwhile, 14 black teen males are shot each day while you hide your head.

Who's the real racist? Aren't you the racist for only addressing problems that solely affect your small-ass white middle-class world? Aren't you the racist for refusing to address problems that don't affect you directly?

Am I the racist for saying I would rather see more funding funneled to groups that try to short circuit the chain effects of gang violence leading to more death and violence? Am I the racist for saying that we need more attention drawn to that problem because it's a severe problem that needs fixing, not for my safety but for the safety of the black community?
20
@17 That avoids the discussion I'm trying to get people to start. The biggest problems relating to gun violence aren't related to Little Timmy picking up a stray gun and shooting Little Sally in the foot. The biggest problems are more about poverty, and inner city poverty. It's more about segregation. They're more about gangs and gang violence. And, yes, it's about race and the disproportionate balance of city poverty and race.
21
@20
"The biggest problems are more about poverty, and inner city poverty. It's more about segregation. They're more about gangs and gang violence."

And my problem is with the people implying that if everyone would follow the example of little Sally's mom and ask little Timmy's parents if they have guns then that would reduce the number of black teens being shot in gang violence.

It is white privilege at its worst.
Stop using the statistics of black teen victims to justify your fears.
Start helping them with the problems that they're facing.
22
@20 Ok lets do it. How about a 20% surcharge on all gun sales with the proceeds going to fund gang intervention programs.

We use sin taxes to fund stadiums so why not a Gun Fetish Death Cult tax to fund gang intervention programs?
23
Gang issues aside, asking if there are guns in the home and verifying that they are securely stored before dropping your kid off at a friend's house is reasonable and sensible parenting. A responsible gun owner should not be offended by that. That some of you are offended by it says something about your lack of rationality.
24
Okay, so the problem is gang violence.

Where are the gang members getting their guns?
25
@22,

Considering that nutcases, oops!, hardliners are trying to remove the sales tax for guns in this state, that's going to be a tough sell.

@18,

I don't see why race necessarily has anything to do with it. When you want to garner more support for a victim of something, you call that person a "boy", "girl", or "child". In my job, I once had to change an editorial reference to a 22-year-old "boy" killed in a wrongful death situation to reflect the fact that he was a grown man, not a child.
26
@19, nobody is "refusing to acknowledge the problem of gang violence". The problem of gang violence is ABETTED by gun kooks, who make the acquisition of guns by gang members easier than acquiring cigarettes.

Most of the guns used in gang crimes in Chicago, for just one instance, come from perfectly legal purchases at just a handful of stores; two stores in suburban Lyons and Riverdale alone accounted for TEN PERCENT of crime guns recovered. FORTY-TWO PERCENT of all Chicago guns were legally purchased in Illinois; 18 percent in neighboring Indiana.

These stores are legally protected, and every gun asshole in the country is fighting as hard as he possibly can to keep this pipeline to the gangs open. And just the other day the gun assholes won their latest fight, to stop Chicago's ban on gun shops within city limits, so gang members will no longer have to travel to the suburbs or go through pesky middlemen; they can buy thousands and thousands of guns every day right there in the city. And they will. No restrictions.

A gang member (if he has no felony convictions -- hey, use your girlfriend) can walk into a shop ten feet over the city line and walk out three days later with a thousand firearms, all perfectly legal. Soon he'll be able to do it next door. The NRA thinks this is just peachy, and they are spending millions of dollars supporting this behavior.

That doesn't include all the guns that were stolen from nitwit gun assholes who were robbed or burglarized.

The fact is that EVERY GUN EVER USED BY ANY CRIMINAL ANYWHERE WAS LEGALLY PURCHASED AT SOME POINT.

So I respectly suggest that you shove your completely bogus "concern for the safety of the black community" up your ass, because you are supporting policies that are destroying the black community and feeding gang violence.
27
Another thing: we constantly hear "gun safety education". But if a kid takes gun safety training, the chance that he will pick up and play with an unattended gun INCREASES. Maybe it's because they've gained enough familiarity to not be afraid to touch it, I dunno, but it's still a problem, because kids shouldn't be fooling with guns period. But the gun nuts think they should, of course.
28
@22 If we did it in a way that wasn't regressive, yes, I would be about that. I have problems with sin taxes as they disproportionately affect the poor and working class. Growing up, I knew a few hunters who were in the lower-to-lower-middle income brackets.

That's another thing you neo-liberals really like. Regressive taxation. Let's sin tax the hell out of everything. That way the world becomes increasingly the playground for the rich, aka those who can afford to ignore the sin taxes.

How did Washington, one of the most progressive states in the nation, come up with the most regressive tax structure in the nation? Patches.
29
A "sin tax" on guns? Nope. There's that messy second amendment again. But I'd be OK with a huge tax on computer games and marijuana.
30
@26 And asking if your child's parents is going to help that issue?

Many guns were procured legally at some point, but then distributed illegally at some point (either through burglary, second-hand sales, or handoffs). So, is the solution to eliminate all guns? I thought you weren't trying for that, though.

And then, what about illegal imports from Mexico or Canada or other countries? How do you handle that? Or are we pretending that those don't and won't exist.
31
@29: Where does the 2nd amendment say that your right to own guns is free from the right of the government to tax you?
32
@27, just an inconsequential anecdote: when I was little, my parents taught me to fear and respect guns. That's why when I pulled up a chair to get to the gun on the dresser, I was always mindful of where I pointed it, never pulled the trigger, and gingerly wiped my prints.
33
Guess you'd have to stop taxing everything that falls under the First Amendment too, if you can't tax guns. Books. Typewriters. Computers. Telephone service. Where does that end?

I'll let 5280's racist rationalizations speak for themselves.

I do like the idea of mandatory gun safety eduction for gun owners thought. Since we're told how important education is. By the same guys who will fight to the death to prevent mandatory gun safety education. Wha?
34
@28 So your suggestion on how to pay for gang intervention that you support is?

35
@26

Source? I'd like to use that in the future.
36
@34 Hell, I'd like an income tax.

Close business loopholes.

Stop giving tax breaks to profitable corporations.

Estate taxes.

Luxury taxes on cars over $100,000.

There are a variety of taxes that aren't regressive patches. Nobody has the balls to get them past the Republicans for fear of pissing off their rich constituents.
37
Not clear on what the difference is between a tax on cars over $100,000 and a tax on guns both are luxuries in todays world.

But ok I'm fine with all that and in fact do agree with you with regards to sin taxes.
38
@36 And you and the other Gun Fetish Death Cult members put all your energy into your one true priority. I'm no longer impressed or forgiving of GFDC members who profess to support those things you mention, because in the end they willingly set aside all those values to the needs of their cult.
39
@38 I'm no longer interested in you or the Liberal Death Cult so fascinated with killing off the inner city kids with ineffectual policies, regressive taxation and all manners of name calling and back patting. Every shooting in the ghetto is, in no small part, due to your unwillingness to help where help is needed. I hope the guilt of 14 shootings rests on your shoulders today. And another 14 tomorrow.
40
@39

Mfw the regressive taxation and elimination of minumum wages of republican neo-liberals is somehow better than the regressive taxation of neo-liberal democrats.
Mfw I have no face.
41
@39 Case in point. Utimately, you have not values but the guns. Everything else is just a game to you.
42
@29: Jesus, what a complete stereotype you are.
43
@40 /b/tard

@41 zzzzzzzz. Sleep well tonight, if you can, killer.
44
Your biggest problem here is that you're all unclear of the legal meaning of the word "right." It really is unconstitutional to impose a punitive tax on someone who is exercising a constitutional right. Ordinary taxes such as sales taxes are fine, but it's improper to place an additional burden on someone who wants to own a gun.
45
@44: It's a right to keep and bear arms, not a right to easily afford arms. A tax that makes guns prohibitively expensive (such as the taxes used to outlaw marijuana in the past) would fail the test; a tax that just adds substantial cost to guns would pass.
46
I disagree with that interpretation, but that's OK. We've got plenty of lawyers. Let's litigate it and see.
47
@44
"It really is unconstitutional to impose a punitive tax on someone who is exercising a constitutional right."

The easiest example of that is poll taxes for voters.
And it is raised every time someone thinks that people X should not be engaged in activity Y.
The current example is requiring government issued identification in order to vote.

You will always find people who believe that being rich means that you should be able to exercise your rights but that being poor means that you should not.
48
@47: So, guns should be free? Is that it? I mean really, how are Americans to exercise their right to keep and bear arms if they are not armed? It is discriminatory to prevent poor Americans from exercising their Second Amendment rights simply because they cannot afford the high cost of guns and ammunition.
49
@ 11, pornmags dont kill children, guns do.
ad as with the rest of your examples, you would keep beer, cigarettes, matches etc etc out of a kids reach right? so why do not the fucking same with guns?
in fact, i'm sure you would not leave say bleach where a kid could reach it, even a lot less so if that bleach looked and smelled like lemonade, why then do you americans insist on leaving lethal objects that kids are way more conditioned to see as toys than as dangerous everywhere?
i'm pro gun rights, but you irresponsible lot make it impossible to make a convincing case that humans can be trusted with that responsibility, thanks a bunch.
50
@48
So you are arguing for imposing additional taxes to restrict the ability of people below a certain income level to exercise their rights.
51
@50: Are you saying that airtime should be free? Because otherwise, we're imposing costs to restrict the ability of people below a certain income level to exercise their rights.
How about this: let's levy a hefty tax on weapons that don't meet certain safety requirements (such as having drop-proof trigger locks) and require that they be registered with the ATF. If you just want to get a run-of-the-mill handgun or hunting rifle, you can get that for cheap. Want to get something with a hair trigger or a gun with full-auto or burst-fire capability? We'll soak you good.
Would that violate the 2nd Amendment?
52
@51
"Are you saying that airtime should be free?"

You are confusing "Freedom of speech" with electronic broadcasting.
They are not the same.
Freedom of speech means that the government will not stop you from arguing for poll taxes.

Just as the government will not stop me from arguing against imposing additional taxes to restrict the ability of people below a certain income level to exercise their rights.
53
@52: People have the right to freely express themselves. There's nothing saying we have to let people express themselves on the air. Similarly, people have the right to keep and bear arms. There's nothing saying we have to let them have whatever kind of gun they want.
And yes, freedom of speech means I can tell you that you are a lying idiot who still won't admit what the facts say.
54
@53
My internet stalker who makes thinly veiled suggestions that I kill myself, you have been answered again and again. You just refuse to accept the examples of Japan or England.

You believe that stalking someone is a rational response when disagreeing with them.
http://www.thestranger.com/slog/archives…
"I promise to stop stalking you if you leave The SLOG and never return."

You had to be corrected on whether a negative suicide existed or not
http://www.thestranger.com/slog/archives…
"This doesn't mean that the number you added was negative,"

And then you demonstrated that you do not understand what a negative correlation is
http://www.thestranger.com/slog/archives…
"There is no such thing as a negative suicide, but there is such thing as a negative correlation."

I have an internet stalker.
And my internet stalker likes to make thinly veiled suggestions that I kill myself.
55
@54: You do realize that those quotes don't even mean what you say they mean, right? Not even when you take them out of context!
56
@55
My internet stalker who makes thinly veiled suggestions that I kill myself, they are direct quotes from you and the links to prove it.
For example, you believe that stalking someone is a rational response when disagreeing with them.

http://www.thestranger.com/slog/archives…
"I promise to stop stalking you if you leave The SLOG and never return."

I have an internet stalker.
And my internet stalker likes to make thinly veiled suggestions that I kill myself.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.