Gun Violence in America: Race, Reform and Freedom

 American seem increasingly terrified of the upcoming November elections regardless of the outcome. If the "Trumpsters" win, the fear is mass riots by the Far Left worse than when won Trump in 2020. If the Democrats win, the concern is another "January 6th" on steroids. One indication is the fact that Americans are arming themselves like never before. 

Case in point, in 1999 just 26% of Americans owned a firearm for self-protection. Today that number is  80%. One professor, Dr. David Yamane of Wake Forest University equated the uptick to the radical change in cultural values, which is something not seen to this degree since the late 1960's and early 1970's.

A recent Pew poll showed that 40% of households had at least one firearm in the house. 45% of Republicans and conservative leaning Independents owned a weapon while just 20% of Democrats or liberal leaning Independents did. When it came to gender, 40% of males owned a gun compared to 25% of women.

When we look at race, Americans of European origin made up 38% of gun ownership. Black Americans comprise 34% of gun ownership. Meanwhile, the nation's largest minority, Hispanics, made up 20% of the ownership. Asians were just 10% of gun owners. The reason most often cited by 72% gun owners for the reason they owned a firearm was self protection of person and property. 62% say they use their firearm mostly for hunting or sport. 15% claim they simply collect weapons of various sort. Lastly 7% it's a part of their job (such as security guard).

What type of guns do most Americans own? 72% of gun owners have a pistol/handgun. 62% have a rifle of some sort (including lever action and semi-automatics like an AR15). Finally, 54% own a shotgun (either single or double barreled). It bears mentioning that  58% of Americans in general favor tighter gun control laws. 26% believe current laws are about where we need to be, and 17% think that current gun laws are too restrictive.

Where do most of these gun owners live? Not surprising is that the majority---47%---live in the country where a firearm is commonly used for a wide variety of reasons such as hunting, protection against snakes and dangerous animals as well as theft of personal property and livestock as well as self protection.  Suburban neighborhoods, which comprise mostly Middle Class families and individuals, make up 30% of gun owners. 20% of those who own a firearm line in urban areas.

When it comes to the 2nd Amendment and the right to bear arms without restrictions, the percentages are quite low. The majority of gun owners regardless of political "affliction" said they believe that there should be some form of restrictions. For instance, respondents favor legislation to prevent those with some form of mental illness to own a firearm in near equal measure. 88% for conservatives and 89% for liberals.

What about carrying a concealed weapon without a permit? 60% of Republicans say no while 91% of Democrats agree.  When it comes to military styled weapons (which are typically semi-automatic deigned to look like a military grade firearm) as well as high capacity magazine clips (clips which hold more than eight rounds), the difference between ideologies becomes crystal clear. 81% of Democrats and those who lean liberal oppose both. 

In addition, there are now 17 states which no longer require a permit to carry a firearm---Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming. Some states, such as New Hampshire is expected to pass a law to allow residents to have a loaded gun in the car provided the car is locked when unoccupied and the weapons is not readily visible.

So, where does gun violence most often occur? Globally, the U.S. is the overwhelming leader when it comes to gun related deaths. at 12.1% per 100,000. The next highest is Finland with 3.25% per 100,000. Canada's rate was 2.05%. Japan had the lowest rate of gun related deaths at 0.06%.

States with the highest rate of gun violence tend to take place in "blue states", that is, states controlled by Democrats, especially in the South. Mississippi is the worse state when it comes to gun violence at nearly 30% per 100,000. Louisiana is next with 28.2% per 100,000. Rhode Island was the safest state with just 3.1%.

When it comes to cities, Pueblo, Colorado was the worse city for gun violence with a murder rate of 119% over the previous year, is a moderate size city with a population of about 112,000. As an aside,  Pueblo has a racial makeup is 71.78% white, 12.36% mixed race, 9.26% listed as "other" and 3.14% Native American. Perhaps of more significance is the poverty rate, which stands of 16%.6. The unemployment level is 7% which are known to affect crime levels.

Pueblo was closely followed by Amarillo, Texas, which has a population just over 200,000, at 117%. Next on this shameful list is Lansing, Michigan. It has 112% rate of gun related deaths. Lansing has a surprisingly low population of 112,500. Whites make up just half the population with 52.6%. Blacks comprise 23% while mixed race is 6.03%. Hispanics are 5.52% of the residents and Asians are  4.93%. Lansing's poverty rate is 20%, which far exceeds the national average of 12.5%. It's unemployment rate is 3.90%.

Austin, Texas, with a population of 974,400, has been shown to have a gun violence rate of 86%. Rounding out the top five of this nefarious list at 77% is Fayetteville, North Carolina and its population of just under 209,000.  Their unemployment rate  is 5.2%, and poverty level of 18.7%, both of which are higher than the national average.

Other cities with higher than average gun related deaths include St. Louis, Missouri, New Orleans and Baton Rouge, Louisiana,  Jackson, Mississippi, Birmingham, Alabama, Baltimore, Maryland and Cleveland Ohio. Cities like Louisville, Kentucky, Memphis, Tennessee, West Palm Beach, Florida, Columbia and North Charlestown, South Carolina and Atlanta Georgia have higher levels of gun deaths relative to their population size. 58% of Americans say they've either personally experienced some form of gun violence or know someone who has.

In examining percentages of gun related deaths, we unsurprisingly find 66% are homicides. 32% are suicides and 3% are accidental.   It's worth mentioning that among the suicides, 16.9% were known to have some form of medically diagnosed mental illness at the time of their death and one person per day accidentally dies by a firearm (the most common form of accidental death was while cleaning their gun). 

Native Americans and Alaskan Natives have the highest percentage of suicide of any racial group. The root cause is believed to be extreme poverty coupled with drug and alcohol abuse.  Should we be surprised that around 50% of Americans admit being anxious when firearms are present? 36% said they or someone they know will be exposed to a gun related crime in their lifetime.

When we delve further into homicides, we find that Black Americans have the highest statistical rates of firearm related deaths at 8 times the national average (on average, just slightly under 10,000 blacks die of gun violence every year.  

The police have shot and killed more whites than any other racial group in terms of raw numbers. However, Black Americans are shot and killed at a higher percentage relative the size of their population. They are  followed by Hispanics and finally other racial groups.

To put it in further perspective, blacks comprise just 13% of the U.S. population while owning 24% of all guns. However, 60% of all gun related deaths are Black-Americans. When compared to the largest minority population, Hispanics, blacks die at a rate 11.5% more often than Hispanics. 83% of deaths among Black Americans are gun related. If blacks don't think back lives matter, why should the rest of America? 

Black youth of either gender die much more often due to gun violence than any other racial population. From birth to age 17, black youth die at a rate of 7.87% per 100,000 compared to whites and other racial groups of the same age, the death rate is 0.58%. From ages 18 through 24, their death rate is sickening 58.78%. For everyone else, it's roughly 3.10%.

From 25 to 39, the percentage of black deaths by gun violence is 42.35%. Other racial groups have an average of 3.21%. Finally, blacks 40 and over, their death rate is 11.5% per 100,000. For everyone else it's 1.78%. The average across all age brackets for Black Americans is 21.05%. For everyone else it's 1.93%

When we break down by gender, we find that black males are far more likely to die by gun violence than black females. If we group together all age brackets, black males have a death by firearm percentage of 40.09% compared to other races which have a death rate of 2.77%. The highest death rate among black males is between ages 18 and 24, While Hispanics, whites, Asians, and other races have a 4.59 death rate percentage, the death rate among black males is a horrific 104.07%!

Even when you look at older age groups, the percentage of gun related deaths for black males far exceed their population percentage. For age 19 up to 39, it's barely under 80%! Other racial groups show a 5.02% rate. You would expect that late middle age men would do better. Guess again.

Blacks males 40 and over have a gun related death rate of 20.42% per 100,000 compared to 2.48% for males of other races. It bares mentioning that 85% of all gun related murders of blacks were committed by other blacks, and while white on white gun rated murders have increased. Roughly 84% of whites are killed other whites, yet black on black homicides are roughly 93%.  A interesting aside mentioned in a Department of Justice report states that 52% of victims are familiar with their murderer. 

Politicians (mostly Democrat) have been promising serious gun law reforms for decades. Several such as Barack Obama and Bill Clinton have said they would "go door to door" if they had to taking away people's guns. Even 2024 Democratic nominee, Kamala Harris, has promised serious gun law reform, making it more difficult to buy or own a firearm. Of course, that's great for a sound bite on nightly news and aimed as invigorating the anti-gun crowd, that's neither realistic or likely ever to happen.

Many Americans are willing to accept tighter guns laws in order to keep firearms out of the hands of people most likely to cause harm such as the mentally unstable, drug addicts, and so forth. But as the old adage goes, "when guns are taken away, only criminals will have guns". It will be like fat sheep being guarded by hungry wolves.  

Besides, Americans have had a love affair with guns since the founding of this nation. They are part of our national fabric like freedom of speech, assembly, or the right to vote (not that it does us any good), Nevertheless, 89% of Americans agree there should be mandatory background checks without exception.

66% of Americans favor laws to allow the Feds to track gun sales (which means keeping records so they'll know who owns what). I understand the reason behind such a law, but to me that seems to violate our right to privacy. 64% want to ban high capacity magazines which hold more than 10 rounds. Proponents say there is no reason for anyone to shoot more than 10 rounds. Opponents point out that it's no one's business how many rounds they shoot.

Another 63% want to ban "assault weapons" all together. I suspect that most of these individuals have little idea what a "assault weapon" actually is. A so-called "assault weapons" is merely a semi-auto rifle like any other used in hunting or recreational shooting. The one key difference is that the stock has been changed to give it a "military" style. It just makes it look "cooler". It is not a military grade weapon.

So, when they say they want to ban "assault weapons", in reality  they mean any rifle other than a single shot bolt action rifle. I suppose they'd like to see us return to Colonial era black power flint locks too.  It's more likely they want to ban any add-on mechanisms or devices which can convert a rifle or other firearm into something approaching a full automatic such as was used by the 2017 mass murderer, Stephen Paddock, in Las Vegas where he killed 60 individuals and injured 413 more. At the time Paddock was using something called a "bump stock" which used the gun's recoil to continue firing. While it came too late for the victims, the 'bump stock" and similar devices have been banned.

There is no question tighter laws should be considered, but first existing laws to be enforced and extended to include gun shows where used guns can be bought with no background check. Transactions between individuals could be conducted using a intermediary such as a licensed gun store dealer.  It would be a little harder on both buyer and seller, but with proper ID, sellers could do a electronic background check. I'm sure everyone would agree that the minor inconvenience would be worth a possible life lost.

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, attitudes toward gun violence must change, especially among those who've come to believe the only way to settle a disagreement is through violence. These people need to accept that all life has value, even those you disagree with. That people are murdered for  chump change makes no sense. Stealing someone's car or breaking into a house is placing more value on their stuff than your own life. Gun violence is the first choice of the weak and ultimately solves absolutely nothing. 

 

 If you enjoyed the article, please consider passing it along to others and don't forget to subscribe. It's free! Lastly please be sure to "like" us on whatever platform you use to read anotheropinionblog.com. It helps beat the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Thank you!

DOJ: Limits on Gun Ownership May Result in Tyranny...

Key facts about Americans and guns

Permitless Carry of Guns: A State By State Analysis

Americans are arming up, study says

Homicide Rates by Race and the Medhi Hasan Controversy

DOJ: Black on Black Homicide---A Psychological PoliticalPerspective

The Disproportionate Impact of Gun Violence on BlackAmericans

Gun Violence Statistics 2024 ---  By Country, City, Demographics, Type Murder Rate and Intent

 

Gun Control and Race: Taking Responsibility

 Former President Barack Obama recently said, in a interview with "CBS Mornings" on May 16, 2023, that the debate about gun control “has become sort of a proxy for arguments about our culture wars. You know, urban versus rural. Race is always an element in these issues.” He added that the debate over gun control has become an "ideological issue and partisan issue in ways it shouldn't".

Well, in a sense, the former President is correct. It has become an ideological and partisan issue in that the solution for Democrats and those on the Left is circumvent the 2nd Amendment in every way possible. They would like to make it illegal to own certain types of rifles simply because their stock has a military design such as the AR 15.

The media would have you believe that this is some sort of military grade firearm that somehow magically made its way into the hands of the public. For the record, an AR 15 doesn't stand for "Assault Rifle"  or "Automatic Rifle". It stands for "ArmaLite Rifle", the name of the original manufacturer, which is modeled after a military M-14 rifle.

The AR 15 is a semi-automatic rifle, the kind of which that have been around for decades and commonly for hunting or target shooting. Pretty much every manufacturer produces some sort of semi-automatic rifle. The only real difference here is the design of the stock which is intended to give it more of a "wow" factor.

The Left is also wanting to make it much more difficult to purchase handguns of all makes and models, if not outlaw them altogether.  There has even been some discussion by Democrats in Congress to require active duty and former military as well as law enforcement members to undergo special psychiatric exams  before being allowing to purchase any firearms, especially handguns.

Conservatives, as expected, deeply oppose any additional restrictions to gun ownership. They see it as an attempt to do away with gun ownership in piecemeal fashion until the average citizen is no longer able to own any firearms. They believe that the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right of all citizens to own a firearm, whether it be for hunting, target shooting, self-protection or no particular reason at all. But more so, as a bulwark against a tyrannical government as expressly stated by the Founding Fathers.

To paraphrase the likes of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison on the subject, a unarmed and unprepared populace is no longer a nation of citizens. It is a nation of subjects. They feared that any government, including the one they just created, could become despotic just as they feared the creation of political parties.  As Benjamin Franklin said, "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote".

However, what this actually comes down to is, as Obama suggests, a matter of urban versus rural and ultimately, one of race.  The truth is that Black youth are five times more likely than any other racial group to be murdered. They are also more likely to be murdered by another Black person than they are a white, Hispanic, or Asian. Whites and Hispanic youths are killed at a rate of 2.3 per 100,000. The percentage for Asian deaths is .90 per 100,000, while for black youth it's 11.8 per 100,000.

Statistics from a 2018 FBI report shows that 16% of white victims were killed by Black attackers while 8% of Black victims had white attackers. However, in crimes in general, in 80% of the cases where the victim was white, the perpetrator was also white. When it came to Black victims, the perpetrator was Black in 89% of the cases. Among Black youth, 8 out of 10 deaths by gun were homicides. The majority of which were committed by another Black individual.

A 2016 study conducted by the American Journal of Preventive Medicine examined 812 deaths in 17 states from 2009 through 2012 which involved law enforcement. The study showed that white individuals were more likely to be the victim of a police shooting than not. In fact, whites represented 52% of the deaths. Black deaths by a law enforcement officer represented just 32.4%, making white deaths 2.8% higher than that of blacks.

It should be pointed out that in 83% of the time, the victim was armed when shot by law enforcement. Black victims, however, were most often reported to be unarmed---18.4%---of the time compared to white victims, who were unarmed just 9.4% of the time. In addition, the report mentioned that black males were killed by law enforcement 2.5 times more often than their white counterparts. Black females were killed at a rate of 1.4 times more often than white females.

Could this be part of the cultural issue Obama spoke of? There is no question that Hispanics tend to avoid law enforcement. Many come from countries that have a long history of brutal and corrupt law enforcement officials where rape, extortion, bribery, and even murder are not unknown. Asians too have a fear and distrust of law enforcement for much the same reasons. Of course, in both cases, language differences add another layer of mistrust.

For whites, it's different. Most police officers and law enforcement officials are white. In fact, 60% of police officers are white. Historically, that number has been much higher. Hispanics make up about 18.2% while 12.9% of  police officers are Black and just 3.3% are Asian. Native Americans make up only 1%.

 As an aside, the number of white officers has declined since roughly 2019 while Hispanic officers have increased slightly since 2020, which also marks the same point where the number of Black police officers started to decline. The number of Asian and Native American officers has remained consistent.  

It's worth pointing out that males comprise 83.2% of all police officers while females make up 16.8%. Also, female officers earn, on average, just 94 cents for every dollar her male counterpart earns. The average salary for a male officer is $54,340 and $51,038 for female officers.

But what about Black culture? Why do blacks have higher percentage of arrests and fatalities when it comes to their dealings with law enforcement? Are they just unlucky and get caught more readily? The short answer is "no". While Asians and Hispanics have keenly developed distrust of law enforcement, both cultures have a strong appreciation for authority and authority figures in general. The same can be said of whites.

All three groups were historically taught from a young age to respect and follow authority figures, which was often reinforced at home. It was common when I was growing up to seek out a police officer or fireman if you were lost or in trouble. Neighbors would watch out for trouble and thought nothing of calling your parents to rat you out if you did something wrong. Churches and other religious institutions were another source of reinforcing the concept of authority. Schools too practiced strong discipline and misbehavior of any sort wasn't tolerated. 

However, this same level of compliance toward authority seems to be missing within the Black community. What happened? Part of the reason is due to the fact that typically white, Asian, and Hispanic households included two parents, and often grandparents, aunts, uncles, and lots of kids! It wasn't uncommon for extended family to live nearby and often visited. So, there was at least a stable family life. 

In Black households, this wasn't always the case. In 2011, 72% of Black households consisted of single mothers. In 2016, 48% of all non-Black households were married while just 28% of Black households were. According to one telling statistic, in 1925 Harlem New York, 85% of Black households had two parents. By 1965, following the introduce of various welfare programs, out-of-wedlock births had increased 25% among Blacks.  

By 1991, that figure was 68%.  As of 2017, it was 77.3%, the most of any racial demographic. This meant that Black children were disproportionately growing up without a father figure in their lives. It also means that most had little adult supervision during critical stages in their lives. While schools and other institutions attempted to fill the gap, they are no substitute for the traditional two parent family.

39% of Black children do not live with their biological father. 28% have no male role model in their lives, compared to 15% of white children. 32% of Black fathers have never visited their biological children as opposed to 11% of white fathers. As a result, black children lack a key stabilizing factor in their lives.

As an aside, 50% of Blacks have never been married compared to 33% of all other racial groups. Black males, interestingly, were also more likely--15%---to marry non-black women compared to just 7% of Black women who married outside their race. 

It's also worth nothing that single parent households are quickly on the rise among Hispanic women in the United States despite a history where out-of-wedlock births carried a strong religious and societal stigma. In Latin America for instance, the trend is spreading in spite of its strong Catholic traditions. 84% of births in Columbia are out-of-wedlock. Mexico, Chile, and Argentina have similar percentages. However, this doesn't mean the absence of a father figure, which remains a key element in Hispanic culture. Meanwhile, this trend has yet to appear in the Asian community.

Another key factor contributing to gun violence among the Black community, especially as it relates to the police, is a toxic culture toward institutional authority in general, and toward law enforcement in particular. It can even be found in some of the music Black youth and young adults tend to listen to (mainly "gangsta rap") which often glorifies guns, drugs, rape, and murder, especially of police officers.

Certain rap performers also promotes what is termed as "savage" or extreme rude behavior toward authority figures. This is often reinforced through peer pressure, which can be quite powerful among teenagers. It can be seen in schools, in malls, neighborhoods and reinforced in movies and video games, while the media (mainstream and Black oriented) has been persistently promoting a subculture of entitlement or victimhood coupled with the creation of "identity politics", a term which developed out of a 1977 statement made by the Combahee River Collective, a black feminist lesbian socialist group.

Identity politics creates false sense of separateness as if one particular group stands uniquely alone with its problems and thus develops a "us vs. them" mentality which pits them against everyone else.  At the same time, the media has sought to create a corresponding culture of subservience, manufactured "guilt", willfully ignoring or excusing the "savage" behavior by other racial groups. The media also tends to underreport or downplay certain acts of violence or inappropriate behavior in order to create a false sense of normalcy. 

Former President Obama is correct in his assessment. The rise in deaths among Black youth, and indeed, the increase in Black related crime and violence, is indeed as cultural as it is racial or ideological. We essentially have two competing cultures which are, at their core, the product of fractured families, the result of the unintended failure of various government programs, and a taught sense of distrust of authority figures, which is reinforced through misguided media, plus a glorification of anti-social behavior and "political correctness". Even in public schools, academic achieving black students are often harassed verbally or physically for "acting white".

So, what does all this mean? It means that Blacks experience a higher rate of gun related deaths any other racial group. It also means they are more likely to be the victim of a crime where the perpetrator also happens to be Black as well. They are also more likely to be the victim of law enforcement related deaths than not, particularly if they're male. Percentage wise, they have highest number of individuals behind bars, largely based on drug or felony. The media has perpetuated a sense of persecution and entitlement while excusing anti-social behavior.

 Nevertheless, the issue of gun control is, at its heart, aimed at controlling the spread of gun related violence. On one hand, gun control advocates believe that by taking guns out of the hands of all citizens, criminals would also voluntarily surrender their guns or obtaining guns would be more difficult to acquire. The end result would be a reduction crime in general. They believe that the 2nd Amendment is outdated and/or misconstrued. By forgoing this unnecessary freedom, it would be a small price to pay in order to create a less violent society. A case of sacrificing one freedom for the greater good of all.

Those who are pro 2nd Amendment, however, believes that the greater good is best served by creating as few potential victims as possible. They argue that if more people are armed or has access to guns, criminals would go elsewhere. After all they point out, criminals are, at their core, cowards. They seek out the opportunities where they're most unlikely to get caught or get hurt. By equaling the odds, gun related violence would decline. They also believe, like the Founding Fathers, that government is not to be trusted.

There a substantial distrust of government on both sides of the political spectrum. In a 2022 Pew Report, only 22% of those polled said they trusted the government. When broken down by race, Asians trusted the government most with 37% as did 29% of Hispanics. Just 24% of Blacks had confidence in the government compared to only 16% of whites. Democrats and Liberals in general expressed the greatest amount of trust with 26% while only 7% Republicans and Conservatives did! Independents also polled at 29%.

Another indicator of the divide is a survey conducted by Quinnipiac University and published in the February 16, 2023 edition of The Hill. According to the poll, 62% of respondents said trusted the police in most or all cases to do the right thing, which may sound good until you look as the responses by race.

72% of whites surveyed said that had confidence in law enforcement to do what was right at least most of the time. 49% of Hispanics agreed (Hispanics are the second largest demographic in the U.S.). However, 66% of Blacks expressed little or no trust in the police to do what was right! Asian responses were too small to tabulate.

That 66% represents 40.1 million people or about 12.1% of our total population. That is a substantial amount, especially when we member that they are affected more by gun related deaths than any other group. They also make up 38.5% of the total prison population. Whites and Hispanics comprise 57.5%. Native Americans are 2.6% and Asians are 1.4%. Nevertheless, Blacks incarceration rates are statistically higher given the percentage of their total population.  

We have to find a balance between reducing gun related violence and protecting ourselves. We require gun registration, age requirements, and waiting periods. Certain types of ammunition and gun modification kits (such as "bump stocks") are already banned. Schools used to offer gun safety classes which have long been discontinued. Law enforcements provide gun safety locks free of charge for anyone who asks.

What else can we do? We can reintroduce gun safety classes for first time purchasers of firearms or require periodic gun safety recertification for all gun owners. This can readily be done through the NRA and Gun Owners of America. In many states, certification classes are required to obtain carry and conceal permits. However, some states have done away with those, citing an infringement of their 2nd Amendment rights.

Currently, there is no registration requirements, background checks, or licenses required to purchase used firearms. Obviously creating a perfect venue for criminals. Perhaps extending the same requirements to buy new firearms should be applied to purchasing used firearms.

Efforts are underway to allow individuals to sue gun manufacturers for a gun related death. That makes as much sense as suing a car manufacturer in death of someone killed or injured in a automobile accident or suing a knife maker for cutting your finger. It's a complete abrogation of personal responsibility in my opinion.

Meanwhile, respect for law enforcement and authority figures such as teachers needs to be reintroduce. It means removing the graphic violence seen in video games which conditions young minds to devalue life. It means moving away the focus on anti-social behavior by reintroducing a sense of respect and responsibility of one's own actions and ending the sense of entitlement.

Guns are essentially a tool. They can be used for a multitude of purposes, most are good but some aren't. Either way it's the intention of the user not the tool that is at fault regardless of their race, religion, or ethnic background. We can reduce accidental shootings by using common sense such as gun safety training and keeping them away from children. But removing guns from law abiding citizens will have no affect on those who intend on harming others. Criminals don't care a whit about laws or restrictions. In fact, I dare say that criminals are the biggest supporters of gun control.

 

If you want to know more about this article's topic, please check out the links below. If you enjoyed the article, please consider passing it along to others and don't forget to subscribe. It's free! Lastly please be sure to "like" us on whatever platform you use to read anotheropinionblog.com. It helps with the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Thank you! 

 

Alarming rise in youth gun deaths breaksdown differently by race

Gun Quotes From 20 of America's Founding Fathers --- 2nd Amendment

Fact Check: Rates of white-on-white and black-on-black crimeare similar

Police Officer Demographics and Statistics In The U.S.

All Across Latin America, Unwed Mothers Are Now The Norm

Hispanic Family Values?

 

African-American Family Structure

The Origins of the 'Acting White' Charge

Public Trust in Government 1958 - 2022

Bureau of Prisons: Inmate Race

62 percent in new survey trust police to do what is right all or most of the time

Gun Control: Getting History Right

 I recently saw a post on one of my social media feeds which, frankly, annoyed me. The post read "In the 20th Century, China, Russia, and Germany killed over 125,000,000 of their own citizens! All three were Socialist Governments. All three disarmed their citizens FIRST!  Now, considering the Liberal goals of Socialism and Disarmament in the U.S. remember this: "Those who do not learn from history are bound to repeat it".  The backdrop contained a grinning skull aside the Capitol building, which, I'm sure, was to reinforce the ominous nature of the message.

The obvious intent of the post was to inspire fear that the Left would strip everyone of their guns and usurp the 2nd Amendment, which has long been use by the Far Right to motivate firearm enthusiasts and those interested in self-protection for decades now, as well as push their fundraising drives.

I have no issue with the general nature of the message itself. I'm a strong advocate of the 2nd Amendment, and I have no qualms when it comes to self-defense or protecting my family, friends, or possessions. If someone values my stuff more than their own life or want to inflict harm on someone I care about, they might want to reevaluate their life choices first.

However, as a amateur historian, I do have an issue with the part of the message concerning China, Russia and Germany. First, let's make it crystal clear, I'm no apologist for Communism, Marxism, Socialism, or Nazism. I am, nevertheless, a stickler for getting facts straight and not trying to bend or twist facts to fit a political message (especially one which tells me about not learning from history).

As I said, I am a published amateur historian (and political economist) with many decades of research under my belt. I regularly contribute to popular Q&A website, with emphasis on the two world wars where I've earned "Top Writer" status multiple times with tens of millions of views worldwide. I think that gives me some credibility. So, let's delve into this claim about China, Russia, and Germany being "Socialist" nations and disarming their populations.   

Between China and Russia, only China remains a Communist country. However, from 1917 until 1991, Russia was epicenter of global Communism. Revolution came to Tsarist Russia in February 1917 when a coalition of Left leaning factions forced Tsar Nicholas II to abdicate, leading to the formation of the Provincial Government led by Alexander Kerensky, a moderate Socialist and member of the Socialist Revolutionary Party (aka the "SRs").

Kerensky helped form the Russian Constituent Assembly, which was the first democratic government body in Russian history. It's worth noting that the Assembly consisted of numerous political parties, of which the most radical, the Bolsheviks, were a bit player at this point. However, due to various internal and external events (including continued military defeats), Vladimir Lenin and his Bolsheviks were able to successfully mount a putsch or coup (often called the "October Revolution"), which overthrew the Provincial Government and forever dissolved the democratic Assembly.

Previously, Kerensky had ordered all citizens (but not military) to turn in their guns out of fear of a counter revolution, but the possibility of a military led coup by pro-Monarchists and Far Right groups forced him to partially rescinded that order, returning them to the masses. However, those weapons mostly ended up in the hands of Lenin's Bolsheviks who lead an assault on the Winter Palace, thus overthrowing the Kerensky Government and ending Russia's experiment in democracy.  But it wasn't an end of the violence.

After Lenin's seizure of power, a bloody civil war (1917 -1923) ensued between the Bolsheviks and the pro-democracy and pro-Monarchists forces, as well as army units from Japan, Poland, China, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Mongolia, England, France, and the U.S. In addition, there were the "Separatists" of the three Baltic states, Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia. As a result, weapons were disseminated to anyone willing and able to fight. The result was the death of some 10 million people.  

Following Lenin's death in January 1924, the "Man of Steel", Joseph Stalin began a brutal reign which lasted until his death in 1953. When we think of Communism, what we envision is Stalinism, which was not the same as Lenin's Communism which itself was even further from Marx's and Engel's vision.

Lenin had introduced "NEP" (New Economic Program), a type of limited free enterprise. Stalin eliminated it, along with private ownership of land and replacing it with "Collectivization".  It was disastrous for the Russian People; creating the largest man-made famine up to that point and the deaths of at least seven million people in an attempt to jump start the modernization of the economy and bring it on par with the West.

Simultaneously, Stalin instituted systematic statewide terrorism to "encourage" compliance.  Starting in December 1924, one of its first acts was, naturally, seizing all weapons (most were from the world war, and subsequent civil war). Only those authorized---the military and state security apparatus (like the NKVD---predecessor to the KGB) were permitted weapons. Those caught were sentenced up five years in prison per offense and/or fined.

There were a few exceptions, such as licensed ownership of smooth bore hunting rifles. In 1935, similar restrictions were applied to knives.  Beginning in 1941, citizens were encouraged to turn over all weapons (without question) to the Soviet military to aid in their war against Nazi and Axis forces.

Following Stalin's death in 1953, Soviet authorities began slowly loosening restrictions on firearms, including smooth bore shotguns, although registration was still required. To discourage illegal ownership, prison sentences were lengthened to 14 years. However, voluntary surrender of unregistered weapons carried no fines or punishment.

Communist China, founded in 1949 under Chairman Mao Tse-tung (Zedong), was based on the Stalinist model. Like Soviet Russia, it consisted of a all powerful central government under the direction of the Politburo with an elected chairman, who serves as a virtual dictator.  The system itself was intended to be repressive from the start.

When it came to gun control in China, one has to remember that China had been a autocratic monarchy for centuries until 1912 when the Qing dynasty was overthrown during the Xinhai Revolution. Private ownership was highly restricted. After China became a Republic, albeit a highly corrupt one, interrupted by a period small civil wars led by petty warlords (1916 -1928). It also endured invasion by the Japanese, marking the start of World War II and included a semi-covert civil war with Communist forces led by Mao, which ended in 1949 with Mao's victory. All of which made gun acquisition easier.

Nevertheless, gun ownership has always been restricted regardless of who was in power. There were a few exceptions, such as gamekeepers and licensed hunters. During the various wars and social upheavals, guns did occasionally fall into the hands of the masses, however, due to the strict punishment, most were eventually turned into the government voluntarily.   

Again, there were exceptions, such as Hong Kong, which was under British rule from 1841 until 1997. The same applied to Macau, which fell under Portuguese rule. The Miao people are allowed to own smooth bore muskets, though gunpowder is strictly controlled. Today, China remains highly repressive when it comes to guns---even toy guns---with very few exceptions.

Do you remember "Which of these is not like the other?" children's game? Well, in this case, it would be Nazi Germany. First, despite the official name of the ruling party, the National Socialist German Workers Party, Germany under Hitler wasn't "socialist" per se. Hitler's definition of "socialism" was actually "community". Thus, "National Socialism" actually meant a society or community of Germans by and for Germans.

It's true that under Hitler, Germany implemented a wide range of "social" (not "socialist") programs similar to what Britain, France, the United States and other Western nations did such as unemployment benefits, healthcare, mandated vacations, work safety laws, etc. He also legalized unions, albeit under a state union called "DAF" which stood for German Workers Front. Nevertheless, pre-war German workers did at least as well as their Western counterparts.

Also, unlike Russia and China (and Communist countries ever since) private enterprises remained private and thrived. During the war years, those key to the war effort received preference in terms of resources, contracts, and so forth. The Nazi Government did not, however, eliminate capitalism or seize control of private corporations as happens under Communism or Socialism.

As an aside, actual Socialists, as well as Communists, anarchists, and Social Democrats, were typically sent to detention camps for "reeducation" to use the political euphemism of the time. I suspect they wouldn't have been real fond of libertarians either.

As a point of historical reference, there was a "Left Wing" faction within the National Socialist movement, nominally led by brothers Otto and Gregor Strasser and SA Chief, Ernest Rohm. They wanted the concept of "socialism" to be much more literal than Hitler intended despite repeated warnings. 

However, that came to a quick end late June and early July 1934 during a purge known as "The Night of the Long Knives" in which Hitler and leading Nazis eliminated all non-Right Wing hardliners and political enemies. An estimated 150-200 individuals were murdered and hundreds more arrested; some were tortured and others imprisoned. Thus, ending any Left leaning tendencies within the Nazi Party.

When it came to gun control, one has to remember that following the carnage of WWI, there emerged a global pacifist movement. Everyone was sick and tired of death, bloodshed, and war. As a result, the new Weimar Republic's government, led by the Left Wing Social Democrat Party, instituted a policy of restricted gun ownership (the Weimar Republic was a democratic republic formed in 1919 followed the abdication of Kaiser Wilhelm II at the end of WWI). It was intended to be a literal attempt to turn "swords into plowshares", and was generally popular with the public.

As with Russia and China, there were exceptions for hunters, gamekeepers, and others with a demonstrable need. However, for the average citizen, gun ownership was curtailed through restrictions, aided by the creation of a gun registry. However, the Weimar Government wasn't long for this world.

 In 1919, Germany was hit with a period of hyperinflation. Unemployment and inflation hit record levels. One person in three was unemployed. In December 1922, a loaf of bread was 160 Marks. By December 1923, it was 20,000,000,000 Marks!  In November 1923, one U.S. Dollar was worth 4,210,500,000,000 Marks. Some used what money they had to stoke fires to keep warm or cook...or as toilet paper. The Depression of 1929 hit Germany the hardest of all industrialized nations, making the situation dire.

Crime, alcoholism, and drug use was rampant. Germany was forced to pay huge reparations despite the loss of its industrial heart--the Ruhr, and most of its commercial shipping and fishing fleet (thanks to the Versailles Treaty). The country survived mainly on borrowed money and in-kind trade. When the Nazis came to power in 1933 as part of a coalition of conservative parties, Hitler repudiated the Versailles Treaty and its reparations, retook the Ruhr, and began a massive rebuilding of the economy. 

When it came to gun control, the Nazis actually removed restrictions with several exceptions. Those exceptions included Communists, Socialists, anarchists, non-citizens, and Jews. Criminals were also forbidden from possessing weapons as well as those of "questionable character", which included prostitutes, drug addicts or dealers, and alcoholics. Later, it applied to anyone deemed "unreliable" by the State.

As for the average German citizen, gun ownership was generally open, provided the guns were registered (preference went to those who were Nazi Party members). The notion that the Nazis took guns away from all its citizens is not entirely accurate (neither is the notion that the Nazis were "socialist" or "Left Wing"). So, the next time you see someone post something like I mentioned earlier or bring it up in conversation, you'll know better. Want to know more? Check out the links below. 

 

Gun Control in the Soviet Union

Gun Control in China

How the Nazis Used Gun Control

The Nazi gun control argument

German Economy in the 1920s

In Defense of the 2nd Amendment

The 2nd Amendment. The right to bear arms. Self-perseveration, whether that means hunting or protection of one's self, others, and property, few issues have caused such division or passion. The division seems to have come down along political lines with the Left, mainly the far Left, believing that guns, especially certain types of rifles and most pistols, have no business belonging in society while the Right, particularly the far Right, believing that guns are as much a part of our natural rights as clean air and water. Those in the middle, however, believe that certain guns, such as military style firearms, military grade weapons including machine guns, full automatics, and armor piercing ammunition should not be in the hands of civilians. Both the Right and middle agree that self-preservation, especially self-protection of self, others, and property are our rights as citizens. In addition, they are a absolute right to protect ourselves from the tyranny of government, while the Left believes that right either doesn't exist or should fall to officially sanctioned state militias, aka the National Guard, and the police.

America has always been attracted by the allure of the gun. With it, we hunted, fed, clothed, and protected our families in a hostile new land. We explored with it in one hand and a compass in the other, if even that. With the Colt and Winchester in hand, we "tamed the West", and caused much butchery in the process. We defended friend and defeated foe wherever we went. It made the Roaring Twenties roar. It propelled the likes of Jesse James, the Daltons, Bonnie and Clyde, and John Dillinger into American folklore, alongside Buffalo Bill Cody, Sitting Bull, Cochise, Daniel Boone, and Davy Crockett. We had largely been denied ownership of guns in the Old World out of fear we would rise up and revolt against an feudalistic monarchies. We did anyway, with pitchforks, shovels, and knives. Like it or not, the gun is as part of Americana as hotdogs and ice cream. Guns are more than just a means to survive and protect, they are tangible representations of freedom. They are our guarantee against a government which seeks to turn against the people it is suppose to represent.

Of course, there is a downside with guns, as there is with all things. America is often viewed as a violent country because of guns. Some people imagine America as having a showdown on nearly every corner every day as if "Anytown America" was somehow a recreation of late 19th century Tombstone Arizona or Dodge City Kansas. Yes, guns are used to commit crimes, but if not the gun, they would likely use something else. It's used by the weak to feel strong; the powerless to feel powerful. This is especially true among the young. They mistakenly think possessing a gun "earns them respect". They wrongly equate imposing fear with power. In reality, it earns them nothing except possibly an early trip to the morgue. But that isn't the fault of the gun. It's the fault of the one holding the gun; who never understood what respect really was all about. They say that guns don't kill, people do, and they're right. A gun, be it a rifle or pistol, is just a tool. No more and no less. How and why it's used is based on the intent of the possessor. Nothing more.

Now, comes along the politicians. Some favor the 2nd Amendment and some don't. That's ok. That's part of the American debate as guaranteed by another amendment, the 1st Amendment which is all about freedom of speech and expression. Those who support the 2nd Amendment tend to see the government as having certain restrictions; certain guidelines or parameters in which it can operate. A few even view government as a necessary evil; something to be watched. Then there are those who see the 2nd Amendment as the evil, and certainly not a necessary one. They view guns as something which belongs to our past; as something which holds us back as a nation and as a civilization. Few of us hunt with them anymore. The military it there for national protection, and the police provide civilian protection, so what's the point? If, somehow magically, all guns would be removed from the hands of ordinary individuals, violent crimes would decrease or even all but disappear (seriously, they believe that). Of course, human nature being what it is, and criminals being who they are, will always find a way to obtain guns just like they found ways to obtain liquor during the Prohibition Era; you know, the "Roaring Twenties". What we would have in reality are armed criminals facing an unarmed public with a understaffed and underequipped police department that's usually fifteen minutes too late. Fish in a barrel.

But, that's not even the half of it. If we surrender our guns, either voluntarily or by force, we also lose our means to defend ourselves from a government overstepping its boundaries. Now, there are those who believe the government would never ever do anything to harm us, yet they overlook all the corruption of government down through history (which may also be why history isn't taught in depth any more). They overlook the allure of power and wealth. They forget that we've already lost the democrat republic that our Founding Father's left to us. We are now a defacto Oligarchy. We---our economic and political system---is controlled by a small clique of corporate elite; the nefarious 1% we've so often heard of. When they collapsed Wallstreet out of the their greed and incompetence, the American People demanded they not be bailed out, yet they were. Why? Why not? They are hand-in-glove with the government. They took care of their own at our expense as they've always done. If we are denied a means to protect ourselves and to fight back, what do you imagine these individuals will do? Will the reel themselves in or will they seek to maximize their control over our lives?

Just recently, Chelsea Clinton, speaking on behalf of her mother, Hillary Clinton, told a group of supporters that her mother would do everything in her power to take guns out of the hands of ordinary men and women. She went on to say that her mother, who knows how to "use" the Supreme Court to impose laws, would take advantage of the death of conservative Judge Scalia, to place a liberal anti 2nd Amendment judge to the High Court. Perhaps in the same way the High Court was used to illegally rewrite a bill which was unconstitutional in order to impose it on the American People as a tax, or in fit of judicial insanity, declare corporations to be "human beings" with not just the same rights as ordinary mortals, but greater rights. How? By ruling that money was "free speech" and while you and I are restricted in the amount of "free speech" we can donate to candidates or issues of our choice. These "Frankensteins" bare no such restriction; in effect, openly allowing them to buy candidates and elections. I don't necessarily support Ted Cruz or Donald Trump, but I don't hear them openly called for the removal of guns from the hands of ordinary Americans like the Clinton camp is.

America is in big trouble. It has been for decades now. I don't think anyone can seriously deny that we are on a downward trajectory. It's more than just an artificially inflated economy thanks to our perpetual "war of terror" and imperialistic wars for fun and profit. We battle enemies mostly of our own government's creation, which has awoken a religious fever bent on the total destruction of all who fail to submit. Instead of taking the threat seriously, we've invited them into our nation on the promise that won't murder anyone. All one has to do is look at Europe to see how good their word is, and yet individuals like Hillary Clinton would have us defenseless? We are witnessing the greatest economic divide perhaps in our nation's history with little hope of ever being bridged. Racial tensions are at the highest since the 1960's, and yet, it seems the fans of hate are being artificially fanned. Most of us thought racial hatred was consigned to the past, but there appears those who see profit from it, economic and political. Illegal immigrations remains a serious economic and security threat, yet nothing is being done (actually, nothing is being allowed to be done). Why? What advantage is there in having over 11 million illegal residents? Perhaps to drive down wages and increase compensation for minimal wage or entry level jobs? Increased compensation of this type not only drive down wages but benefits as those on the bottom rung of the economic try to undercut each other just to have a job.

True, some unions support amnesty for illegals in order to recruit them. But then again, unions are starving for the dues and will accept money whatever its source or long term human cost. Meanwhile, we have a healthcare system which is overburden and failing. Illegals are collapsing a taxpayer based safety net that was never designed for this much usage without being replenished. The US Attorney General's office commits a felony by illegally selling weapons to drug cartels. The result is deal federal agents and civilians; killed with the same guns. The same Attorney General attempts to sue the State of Arizona for enforcing existing federal laws, and then takes the unprecedented step of allowing a foreign nation, Mexico, to join in the lawsuit, and then prohibits federal agents from enforcing the law. Arizona and other border states now have "no go" counties; effectively areas ceded to drug cartels and illegal immigrants. Lastly, we see moves the government to prevent veterans---those who've been trained to use guns---from owning them because they are seen as "potentially dangerous" due to the "stresses of war or military service". Seriously? They are the ones best trained in their usage and safety.

We face an uncertain future with a strong potential of social unrest. Traditionally, we've had the security of knowing we could protect ourselves, our property, and others. If necessary, we had the means to put at least some food on the table. If those like Hillary Clinton are successful, we will lose all that. We will be nearly totally dependent on the government for everything---protection, food, shelter, and who knows what else. we already know the extent Hillary Clinton will go to secure power, even to point of committing treason against this country. Perhaps I'm being a little bit paranoid, but I don't think so. Our Founding Fathers, who faced an out of control government, certainly didn't think so, and history would tend to back us up.

So, what can we do? Well, the first thing is to make sure those who call for surrendering our guns stay out of office, be it elected or appointed, and that means vigilance. Standing up and speaking out even then they try to shout you down. Secondly, we can quietly buy up guns, ammo, cleaning supplies, and replacement parts and securely store it. We can take gun safety classes to learn how to properly use and take care of our guns. We can target practice (with permission of the property owner of course). We can downplay what we have and where we keep it. The fewer who know, the better. Essential people only is your best bet. There's no doubt that we are headed down the road to a police state. We are being monitored at every turn; almost to the point where we don't even notice anymore. We freely surrender our personal information for "free data" or "no signup fees" or some discount on this or that. Is that what our privacy or freedom is worth? Just remember that chains don't have to be made of iron. They can be made of bits of electronic circuitry too, and if we lose the means to defend ourselves, we have lost the key to our own freedom, and once gone, it will not be willingly returned.


Chelsea Clinton: With Scalia Gone, Gun Control An Opportunity On Supreme Court
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/04/21/chelsea-clinton-gun-control-opportunity-supreme-court-scalia-gone/


Chelsea Clinton: Elect My Mom So The Supreme Court Can Enact Gun Control
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/christinerousselle/2016/04/22/chelsea-clinton-elect-my-mom-so-the-supreme-court-can-enact-gun-control-n2152516

A factual look at: Guns In America
http://americangunfacts.com/

Gun Violence in America, in 17 maps and charts
http://www.vox.com/2015/8/24/9183525/gun-violence-statistics