Today the term “ghetto” takes on all sorts of meaning not around when Elvis sang his hit “In the Ghetto” in early 1969. Today, if we say something is “ghetto” we probably mean urban black. Not so, back then. Up until that recording, Ghetto was more universal, had its roots in European oppression, but still spoke of community and way of life. Ghetto soon evolved into meaning urban inner city in America, without much hope.
As we all settle and adjust to yet another mass murder in our country, there is something else to consider. As shocked and rattled as we are by Gabby Gifford’s’ attack, the Aurora Theater massacre, and now the Newtown, Ct murders, we are overlooking how many little children are killed by guns yearly in the inner cities of our nation.
These little children are just as innocent as those 5, 6, and 7 year old babies were in Newtown. Their parents are as horrified and shocked and without consolation as are the parents of the dead in Newtown. The inner city parents can make no sense of wanton killing either, much less the loss of their child.
The inner city kids who have died didn’t have the right address. They didn’t come from a nice neighborhood or have expectations of non-violence. Or did they? No one expects their little child to be gunned down or to catch a stray bullet in his stroller or his mother’s arms.
We need to think about these children also, not just the children of Newtown. These children have just as much right to safety, and yes, to life, as the little Connecticut children. How many innocents will die this year while we all babble on in our middle class accents? One is too many. These children are not expendable either. Yet nearly 300 little kids have died in Chicago in three years. The gun debate must include them.
Elvis Presley got it over 40 years ago. Apparently not everyone does, even today.
You’re right, this discussion is bigger than the recent school tragedy. When you’re constantly on the defense as the NRA is that perspective gets lost.
You are absolutely right.
So, what discussion did you have in mind? Chicago already has a “de facto” gun ban.
Lyssa, a good friend gave me the idea for the post. It sort of grew….
Cargo, Chicago is but one city in the United States. There are many others.
There are a million places to start. Let’s start with the proliferation of multiple firing weapons and huge mags. Same problem. Who in society needs that kind of weapon as a private citizen?
When I was a kid, all the boys were still obsessed with Tommy guns. More fire power.
Tell me why you think these types of guns are needed in society by civilians. I am not interested in your rights. Those could all change with a Supreme Court appointment.
“Tell me why you think these types of guns are needed in society by civilians. I am not interested in your rights.”
Then I can’t answer you. I don’t own all my weapons because of “need.” I own my weapons because I have the right to do so. And yes, that right is subject to the SCOTUS ruling…except that the right precedes the Constitution. A whole “nother can of worms” will be unleashed if any of our rights are arbitrarily restricted by the SCOTUS.
Your question is vague. Are you speaking of semi-auto rifles or handguns? Each has a different purpose.
I can demonstrate where people have needed said firearms. Any time that they were needed for defense of life or property. Rifles protected Korean store owners in LA riots and families during Katrina. Pistols protect people everyday. But in none of these cases are these people “allowed” to own them because they “need” them.
No second party gets to decide the needs for another.
@Moon-howler
If you want to talk about homicide in the cities…. let’s examine where and why?
DC has a higher rate than NOVA. Yet there are vastly more guns in NOVA. Baltimore has a horrible homicide rate. 215 murders. 168 of of them were black victims of gun violence. 7 were white. 2 were hispanic. Chicago is the same way, except they have even more restrictions. New York also has high gun restrictions. Los Angeles….. big gang problem. That’s where most of the violence is. California is chock full of gun restrictions. The only city that has a high murder rate without big gun restrictions s New Orleans, but they are a hot bed of drug crime.
Down here in Richmond, one year with a high murder rate, a map was shown of all the shootings. 99% were in 3 separate areas. All “ghettos” or poor areas, all known drug crime areas. Most were also within a mile of an ABC store.
If you want to talk weapons….lets talk rifles. Crimes, not just murder, are done using rifles just 3% of the time. Any rifle.
Firearms in general….. 0.004% of firearms in America were used in murder. 12,000+ by some counts. 89,000 – 200,000 defensive uses per year is the estimate for defensive gun use, including peacefully letting the criminal know that you are armed. The range is wide due to who does the study. But even gun control groups have accepted Kleck’s study showing the latter amount.
I sympathize with what you’re saying. And I have always believed that some gun control is a moral imperative. I support the limiting of magazine capacity.
But, I’ve become convinced over time that the gangs are going to get guns, and that all we could really do is to drive the price up a bit. People who live in the inner city already know this; they have no illusion that gun control will make their neighborhoods much safer.
I think the root problem easier to address is the emptiness inside someone whose route to manhood involves spraying gunfire. If we the people can stop glamorizing thug life it’ll have a better effect on American neighborhoods than gun control can reasonably effect. This is a job that our artists – filmmakers, musicians – are more suited to than our politicians.
@Rick Bentley
Amen.
Do you find it ironic that NBC cancelled the show 3gun, which showed responsible gun use while keeping the assorted crime dramas and movies involving guns?
3 gun nation.
edit THEN submit.
is anyone other than me having trouble with the video?
I can see it on foxfire but not in IE. Any suggestions?
@Rick Bentley
Rick, I don’t disagree with what you have said at all. I just don’t think that totally covers it.
I dont think saying well thugs have it makes it right to sell huge magazines of ammunition. Somewhere the insanity has to stop.
Europeans watch the same movies, videos, and listen to the same music. They kill much less.
Soooooo…what can we deduce?
Great comment. This moral imperative is key to all freedoms.
@Cargosquid
I didn’t talk rates. I gave a ball park figure of children killed in Chicago. I have never said it is a one diminsional issue. My point must have gotten lost in the great love affair with guns.
Ah…my point–lots of children die every year who don’t live in good neighborhoods with “nice” addresses. They might not die all at once, but they die. They just don’t capture our attention.
i also don’t think arming a bunch of white people is the answer either.
That they’re nicer.
@Cargosquid
I still feel that threat in your tone …about restricting any gun rights. That simply tells me you are not really law abiding, like you claim. It says to me that the laws are matching you, not that you are obeying the laws.
You own guns because you can? i can’t tell you foolish that sounds. I have a right to do all sorts of things I am not going to do. I can buy an arsenol. Nah, don’t want to. I can have as many abortions as I want to. nah, don’t want to.
Ah, reproduction?????? [ears perking up] Don’t even start to tell me about wants and needs. There are armies of people out there making reproductive decisions for women because they think they know their needs. They do not–starting with the cost of contraception. Contraception or food for your kids? Food will win.
I don’t even want to hear it. Because you can. scoff scoff. I will give you points for honesty, however. There really isn’t a need. However, let’s pretend there is. I would be allowing huge capacity magazines with a special permit if need were shown….like Korean laundries wanting to do their own security or whatever that was about.
Everyone doesn’t NEED to get on board with that.
I still feel that threat in your tone
What threat? I have said nor implied a threat, at least from me. I have stated that some people may react violently to the restrictions of rights. Is it still lawful if a gov’t removes your rights? Should not rights be defended? Or just some rights?
You can do all sorts of things that you are not going to do. Ok.
That doesn’t stop others from doing so. Free world.
Yes, there are third parties making all sorts of reproductive decisions. The gov’t is not following the 1st Amendment by forcing private individuals and companies to provide what they feel are abortion inducing drugs. I’m sure that’s what you meant, right? As Marin says, if gov’t is involved in one way…it will get involved the other.
“starting with the cost of contraception. Contraception or food for your kids? Food will win.”
So…are you saying that I or another should be paying for contraception..that it’s a right to have such done? In that case….sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander….I want my subsidized arms. In a more sane statement, nothing prevents the purchase of contraception in today’s world. Nothing is preventing the purchase of an abortion.
Korean laundries…..? It was during the LA riots, the police abandoned the area, leaving the locals to fend for themselves. So store owners were on the roof tops defending their stores from looters.
I saw your point. I expanded upon it. Actually what you’ve said about children elsewhere is a point brought forth many times by 2nd Am. supporters, especially Chicago.
That is so bogus. If the government forced the use of contraception, I would be agreeing. But they aren’t. It is especially disingenuous after some of those same hospitals already have benefits packages that include contraception.
I don’t even care. Contraception should be treated like any other drug and be part of the rx plan. Those who don’t believe it it just shouldn’t use it. That is so simple.
This is 2012. We shouldn’t be fighting over right to contraception. This is not the dark ages.
The bottom line is, the Republicans can keep that birth control crap up and just birth control themselves into extinction. That is what will happen and the women of the United States will make it happen. That isn’t a threat, its a promise.
We are not fighting over the rigth to contraception. We are disagreeing over whether the government or any private insurance company has an obligation to provide it for free. Under your logic, we should not be arguing about whether we have the right to bear arms – we do – but whether the government should pay for them.
I kinda like it.
We have the right to bear arms….but what kind of arms and what kind of ammo seem to be up for grabs. The 2A was rather ambiguous about what kind of arms. I didn’t see UZI in the Constitution.
Actually, we are fighting over the right to constraception. If you can’t afford it, its pretty inaccessible. Would you want to write a check for a tubal ligation? Contraception should be like any other rx. I have never argued for it to be free. On the other hand, it doesn’t need to be $50 for a months supply of pills either. Treat it like any other tier 1 rx and I will be happy. More permanent forms of sterilization, like any other surgery.
@Moon-howler
Again… “arms” has a specific meaning…. the weapons carried by the militia or infantry. So, actually, I should have the same arms as a soldier, at least a rifle.
Arms = weapons. You have the right to bear arms but not all arms.
Why do you think otherwise. You have the right to free speech, within limits. You have the right to religious practice, within limits. No right is without limits.
The gunners on face book certainly have the bully pulpit. someone told me to move to a communist country because I agreed with someone else about not arming the Virginia teachers.
Someone like that really only deserves 2 words FU.