Gunshot Demographics: The ugly underbelly of the anti-gun-rights position

Gunshot Demographics


Gunshot Demographics The ugly underbelly of the anti-gun-rights position
gunlaws.com ^ | 2011 | Alan Korwin
Posted on August 3, 2011

How "The Bad Part of Town" and failed social policies are used for sinister attacks on the right to keep and bear arms, and help justify the law enforcement world and its budgets.

While anti-rights activists speak emotionally about "gun violence""gun deaths" "human tragedy" and saving lives, what they refuse to say is this—

Homicide in America has demographic, geographic, social and economic factors which, if acknowledged and openly discussed, would transform the debate, and place blame where it really belongs: on the causes and people that fuel the violence we hear about (but rarely actually see for ourselves, except on TV "news").

The real blame is hidden, because the truth is so painful. Crime is not spread across the streets of America. Crime, and crime using guns, happens in isolated areas for well known reasons the media and politicians hide from you.

But, it's useful to blame guns instead of criminals, and blame guns instead of politicians and social policies, and blame guns instead of festering pesthole neighborhoods, in the effort to disarm the public and transfer power to the government and away from the people.

Well, the numbers are slightly higher than I expected to see, but the theme is one I've known well for a long time now.

I agree that our country has become ridiculously, overly, politically-correct. We cannot attack and fix real issues because someone might get their feelings hurt along the way. Also, the media is completely biased. No one would deny that fact. Politically, anti-gun activists are extremists. There is no reasoning with an extremist.

Interesting especially since they cite information for Delaware.

So, being a white guy, I don't need to carry a gun any more as long as I stay out of the "bad side" of town...

Well, based on what the maps say, the odds are apparently about one in 23,000 that I will die as a result of stabbing, choking or shooting (at least in the Baltimore-Towson area in 2007).

Now, I realize that wasn't the point of what you are trying to say.

I realize that the police (and gov't in general) are using "gun violence" as the problem, and their solution is to eliminate guns.

But, if you really want to deal with the "whole truth," the fact is (apparently) that if you don't do stupid things, hang out with stupid people, or go to stupid places, you will likely never need your gun (or only need it one out of 23,000 encounters with other people).

Now, according to the National Safety Council in 2009, your lifetime odds are one in 314 of dying from a firearms assault. (Source: Odds of dying link)

In the research I've done, those odds are about the same as having a house fire (not necessarily deadly, just) requiring a call to the FD.

I have a fire extinguisher in my home. I carry a gun. Both for the same reason... "the odds."

I am opposed to the "war on some drugs" (a quote from the article linked). But, if we quit the war on drugs and legalized, and taxed, recreational chemicals; would we see an instant drop in murder rate? Probably not.

I do think it would decline over time, but you might still have some testosterone driven "turf wars" in "those areas," even as depicted in the 50's by West Side Story when there were far fewer drugs involved.

My point here is that we have to be careful what arguments we posit to the antis that are not gov't affiliated... If you show this to them, they can conclude that you don't need a gun to protect yourself if you don't go into bad areas. And, the "odds" seem to agree.

Excellent post and link ExSolider! The flat truth in plain numbers.........

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oakchas

So, being a white guy, I don't need to carry a gun any more as long as I stay out of the "bad side" of town...

Well, based on what the maps say, the odds are apparently about one in 23,000 that I will die as a result of stabbing, choking or shooting (at least in the Baltimore-Towson area in 2007).

Now, I realize that wasn't the point of what you are trying to say.

I realize that the police (and gov't in general) are using "gun violence" as the problem, and their solution is to eliminate guns.

But, if you really want to deal with the "whole truth," the fact is (apparently) that if you don't do stupid things, hang out with stupid people, or go to stupid places, you will likely never need your gun (or only need it one out of 23,000 encounters with other people).

Now, according to the National Safety Council in 2009, your lifetime odds are one in 314 of dying from a firearms assault. (Source: Odds of dying link)

In the research I've done, those odds are about the same as having a house fire (not necessarily deadly, just) requiring a call to the FD.

I have a fire extinguisher in my home. I carry a gun. Both for the same reason... "the odds."

I am opposed to the "war on some drugs" (a quote from the article linked). But, if we quit the war on drugs and legalized, and taxed, recreational chemicals; would we see an instant drop in murder rate? Probably not.

I do think it would decline over time, but you might still have some testosterone driven "turf wars" in "those areas," even as depicted in the 50's by West Side Story when there were far fewer drugs involved.

My point here is that we have to be careful what arguments we posit to the antis that are not gov't affiliated... If you show this to them, they can conclude that you don't need a gun to protect yourself if you don't go into bad areas. And, the "odds" seem to agree.

---

I need the odds of 1 out of 1 that I am #315, then perhaps I will consider not carrying :rolleyes:, nope still a boyscout, "be prepared"! :smile:

If you are the victim of a crime, from your standpoint it hardly matters whether you are in a high crime area of town or you are a solitary pushpin standing all by itself in a "good" neighborhood. I just don't want to find myself in a position where I'm saying to myself "Gee, I wish I had a gun with me".

Wow, this is amazing. I always suspected this was probably the case, but had no idea how right I was. So it looks like criminals kill each other more than they kill the rest of us. That is good news, actually. But it also explains why when the criminals come to the good neighborhoods that they are so merciless and violent. They are used to it, we are not.

That is a load of racist bull.

So because I'm a black man, I'm more likely to be shot?

Anyone who believes that crap is am idiot.

*swyped from the evo so excuse any typos*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thehustleman

That is a load of racist bull.

So because I'm a black man, I'm more likely to be shot?

Anyone who believes that crap is am idiot.

---

Why does quoting statistics make it racism? It is sort like saying that because you are a black man, you are more likely to have sickle-cell-anemia. It is just a known fact that this disease is more prevalent in blacks. It has nothing to do with racism any more than these statistics show. If anything the statistics seems to point more towards geographic areas of town, rather than specific races.

Find me a state with heavy activity by the hispanic gangs like the Surenos or MS13 and the same statistics will be heavy towards hispanic males from 20-30. How is it racist? What is the larger part of violence in cities overrun by gangs? Members of those gangs. Who are the members of those gangs, hmm? I'm not trying to be a jerk or imply anything about anyone, but gangs generally aren't made up of upper-middle-class white folk. Gangs are what they are and teh statistics reflect that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thehustleman

That is a load of racist bull.

So because I'm a black man, I'm more likely to be shot?

Anyone who believes that crap is am idiot.

*swyped from the evo so excuse any typos*

---

Well, I am'nt an idiot. Nor am I racist. Did you go to the article that was linked to in the original post?

What you're saying, or implying at the least, is that "whitey" don't report being murdered... by strangulation, knifing or gunshot. Only blacks report their death toll and the cause... That's like saying it's racist that Blacks, Latinos, and other minorities have a lower standard of living than whites. It is a simple fact.. and one that has gotten worse since the "downturn" in the economy.

Look at the maps in the linked article... apparently it's the man with the sickle who is a racist.

Crime may be mostly located in "bad" neighborhoods.

The problem is that criminals from those neighborhoods do venture out beyond their neighborhoods and into ours.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rammerjammer

Crime may be mostly located in "bad" neighborhoods.

The problem is that criminals from those neighborhoods do venture out beyond their neighborhoods and into ours.

---

That is true. But far less likely to occur. Though some very good neighborhoods abut some very bad ones.

Most (but not all, by any stretch) crime that occurs in good neighborhoods is more "professional" in nature. The home or the individual victim has been more thoroughly "cased." The more professional criminal does not want to be caught, does not want to be shot at, and wants to be invisible otherwise. He wants his crime to be as "victimless" as possible, he just wants the $$$.

I actually knew a "second story man" (now deceased) who had to hide under a bed while the residents (who came home earlier than anticipated) were "enjoying each other's company" and wait until they were asleep before he could escape with the "goods." He was never caught for that crime.