Media forming herd
I'd noted earlier that the media seemed to be going back to its traditional ways, of serving as an arm of the antigun movement. Well...
Yesterday the antigun Violence Policy Center (as in Joyce Foundation is its main income, $400,000 a year) issued a press release focusing on black homicide rates. Chuckle--it's a study of how to pick and choose statistics to get the desired result. Example: the states with the lowest black homicide rates are gunnie South Dakota and Montana. DC is omitted, probably because it would have an astronomical rate -- despite its handgun ban. And its lead target is Pennsylvania, with the study proclaiming it has the highest black homicide rate in the country. But since in 2004 (the year chosen) Pennsylvania had a lower overall homicide rate than the national average (5.2 vs. 5.5), for it to have the highest black homicide rate, it must also have had the lowest or one of the lowest white homicide rates in the nation. Of course the study doesn't mention the non-black rates...
But the media uncritically leap into line:
The Philie Inquirer runs an editoral today entitled "Open Season on Young Black Men; Thank Gun Laws for Fact PA Leads the Nation in Black Homicides." (It didn't do much research: it claims that the "Handgun Owner Protection Act" hobbles BATF. It's the "Firearms Owners' Protection Act," and doesn't).
They covered it on the local news this morning. They even had the black anchor report it. Talk about transparent attempt at a guilt trip.
Posted by: Bitter at January 30, 2007 04:06 PM
It's quite true that outside of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania has a remarkably low crime rate. The crime in Philadelphia is predominately black-on-black violence. I might take on this Inquirer article later.
Posted by: Sebastian at January 30, 2007 04:12 PM
What proportion of these young black men are being shot in Philadelphia? And what are Philly's municipal gun laws like?
Posted by: P. Froward at January 30, 2007 05:07 PM
I maintain this Wikipedia page on the Joyce Foundation which lists the Violence Policy Center and mentions that it has received over $4 million over the last ten years:
Posted by: Kevin P. at January 30, 2007 09:27 PM
It would be racist, of course, not to find some inanimate object to blame. They're scathing statistics alright, but I don't think guns take the worst of it--not by a long shot. Somehow I think plenty of good people will take the lesson that "diversity" in your neighborhood will get your children killed.
Posted by: ss at January 30, 2007 10:31 PM
Philadelphia has no municipal gun laws because Pennsylvania has a strong preemption statute which keeps the city from passing them. So it's the same as the rest of the state, which is to say gun friendly.
Of course, the city politicians are doing everything they can to change this.
Posted by: Sebastian at January 30, 2007 11:22 PM
Gun control has always been about saving the inner city blacks from themselves. I've heard from several black professionals who believe that if guns were banned, there were be far less black on black homicide. Of course, when asked what they would do to protect themselves from the criminals who wouldn't care if guns were legal, they simply said they'd buy one from the local pusher.
Posted by: K at January 31, 2007 12:34 AM
The statistics are meaningless unless they prove the young black men are being killed with legally purchased and properly registered guns. If the young black men are being killed by already illegally obtained weapons then what good would another law do?
Posted by: Faith+1 at January 31, 2007 04:13 AM
"...what good would another law do"
Duh! It would let the advocates for this gun ban sleep better at night, their conscience eased by their activism. After all, it doesn't matter whether it works or not. All that matters is that they tried.
Posted by: jb at January 31, 2007 05:03 AM
I've noticed a lot of crimes are committed by people using their hands.
Clearly, these dangerous, racist appendages are destroying black communities and should be seized before they can do more harm.
Posted by: TallDave at January 31, 2007 08:29 AM
Blacks make up 12% of the population, and commit 25% of the violent crime.
Gun owners make up 15% - 30 % of the population (depending which estimates you use), yet people with guns commit only 7% of the violent crime.
I leave it as an exercise for the reader to figure out which form of profiling would more effective at reducing crime.
And then figure out why we tolerate "gun owner profiling," which is what gun control is.
Posted by: Anonymous Coward at January 31, 2007 09:19 AM
What are the percentages of black on black crime commited by men on one another? What of White on black crime? What of homicides commited in the commission of a felony? (i.e. on co-felons?) Statistics by race? I don't know, but this would seem relevant. For example: If many homicides are attendant to drug dealing - then perhaps drug possession with intent to distribute (dealing) should be harsher than now (harsh, harsher, harshest?) Would a call for the death penalty for drug dealers be met as a call to save urban black males from murder? Somehow, I think not.
Posted by: Californio at January 31, 2007 11:05 AM
Although it may be correct to say that Philadelphia is prevented by the state from passing gun laws, it is (or was as of 2003 when I stopped being a PA resident) within their purvue to restrict issue of concealed carry permits. These are issued thourgh county sheriffs departments; if you are a PA resident and law abiding, they can be obtained unless you have the misfortune to line in Philly. Draw your own conclusions.
Posted by: Russ at January 31, 2007 11:52 AM
So ... these leftards are telling us that they feel blacks cannot be trusted with firearms?
How very special. The KKK agrees with them.
Posted by: Kristopher at January 31, 2007 11:56 AM
If the young black men are being killed by already illegally obtained weapons then what good would another law do?
Posted by: Faith+1 at January 31, 2007 04:13 AM
Well ya see that is why this is just a step in banning all private gun ownership because as the gun grabbers will argue if you have a nation wide gun ban then the criminals will not have any guns to steal of course pointing at Britain or Australia and laughing at that argument does no good. All this is a prelude to the elimination of our second amendment rights and by the way as I recall gun control started in the south as part of the Jim Crow laws that were aimed squarly at blacks in order to keep them from being able to defend themselves isn't it ironic that now the lefties so called champions of minorities are using one of those same minorities as an excuse to institute laws that are based in racism.
Posted by: Oldcrow at January 31, 2007 12:41 PM
PS - source for the crime figures in my above post is:
U.S. Department of Justice. National Crime Victimization Survey.
Criminal Victimization in the United States. (1996 - 2002, Statistical Tables).
Table 40: "Percent distribution of single-offender victimizations, by type of crime and perceived race of offender"
Table 46: "Percent distribution of multiple-offender victimizations, by type of crime and perceived race of offenders"
Table 66: "Percent of incidents, by victim-offender relationship, type of crime and weapons use"
Available on the internet at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/cvusst.htm
Some activists compare crime in the United States (290 million people) to countries such as Canada (30 million people) and Great Britain (60 million people), but they ignore the demographic differences. Only 2% of Canada’s population and 4% of Britain’s population are black.
Source for Canadian population figures: http://www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/demo41.htm
Source for UK population figures: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/lib/viewerChart305.html
As Dr. Edgar Suter wrote in his 1994 article "Guns In the Medical Literature: A Failure of Peer Review":
Kellermann and Sloan glossed over the disparate ethnic compositions of Seattle (12.1% Black and Hispanic; 7.4% Asian) and Vancouver (0.8% Black and Hispanic; 22.1% Asian). The importance? Despite typically higher prevalence of legal gun ownership amongst non-Hispanic-Caucasians in the US, the homicide rate was lower for non-Hispanic-Caucasian Seattle residents (6.2 per 100,000) than for those in adjacent Vancouver, Canada (6.4). Only because the Seattle Black (36.6) and Hispanic (26.9) homicide rates were astronomic could the authors make their claim. [See Graph 14: "Ethnic and Racial Groups -- Seattle and Vancouver" & Graph 15: "Homicide Rates by Ethnic and Racial Group -- Seattle and Vancouver"]
Could guns have some special evil influence over Blacks and Hispanics, but not others? Hardly! The authors failed to identify the inescapable truth. The roots of inner-city violence lie in the disruption of the family, the breakdown of society, desperate and demoralized poverty, promotion of violence by the media, the profit of the drug trade, the pathology of substance abuse, child abuse, disrespect for authority, and racism -- not in gun ownership.
Posted by: Anonymous Coward at January 31, 2007 12:51 PM
When PA originally passed its licensing scheme, Philadelphia was exempted from having to issue licenses. In 1996, the state legislature removed Philadelphia's exemption and made them the same as the rest of the state, with the exception that instead of the Sheriff handling the licenses, the city police would do so. But the law is the same in Philadelphia now as it is in the rest of the state.
Posted by: Sebastian at January 31, 2007 05:24 PM
Sebastian has already made the main points but I can supply some additions. Philadelphia throws some wrinkles into the carry permit issuing process that are almost certainly legally impermissible,but they get away with it. If you go through their hoops, you get your permit in a couple of weeks, so reasonable people go along and get along.
For example. they require veterans to produce a DD214, to prove that they are not dischrarged under dishonorable conditions. The law allows the issuing authority to conduct an investigation, it does not require the applicant to conduct that investigation for them. By the way, they treat OTH (other than honorable) discharges as though they were dishonorable, which they are not.) Also, they require that one show a driver's license, again beyond the statutorily permitted requirements. They have you fill out forms, beyond the state application, even though the state law clearly states the the state form is the only one to be used. Finally, they require the applicant to supply written character references, again on their form, thus requiring the applicant to do their investigation for them, which is certainly not required by state law.
The City plays other games, such as pretending that the permit extends to concealed carry only, which is incorrect. Pennsylvania law does not prohibit open carry, except in vehicles. A provision of state law does forbid open carry in "cities of the first-class," i.e. Philadelphia, unless one has a license. The plain meaning of this is that licensed, open carry is lawful in Philadelphia, but don't try it. Now no one intends to strap on a big iron and stride down the center of Market street, but anyone might have the wind blow his or her jacket open.
Posted by: Lou Gots at February 1, 2007 10:44 AM
Thank you very much for sharing your thoughts. It is always great pleasure to read your posts.
Posted by: John at May 11, 2007 01:10 AM