WUSA9.com:

RICHMOND, Va. (WUSA9) — Stymied in the state legislature, Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe just took new gun restrictions into his own hands.

The governor signed an executive order Thursday banning firearms in most state government buildings and empowering the Attorney General to prosecute illegal gun sales.

Up until the governor’s order, almost everyone was legally entitled to carry a firearm into the DMV in Virginia.

Governor McAuliffe handed to pen he used to sign Executive Order 50 to the parents of murdered WDBJ reporter Alison Parker and argued the measures will help reduce gun violence.

“No more excuses. No more politics. No more senseless deaths while elected leaders play partisan petty games,” McAuliffe said.

The ban on openly carrying guns applies immediately to all state buildings the governor controls. He also hopes to ban people with concealed carry permits from bringing their guns in, but that process could take a month.

To date, there is no ban on concealed carry.   I am assuming those guns with a permit can still be carried anywhere.

Let’s have this discussion explain why anyone should have a gun in state buildings.    For the life of me, I can’t see carrying a long rifle into the governors mansion.   The Capitol and General Assembly have no gun bans as they are under the control of the General Assembly.

I can understand not wanting guns in the DMV.  Too tempting, just too tempting.

 

 

52 Thoughts to “McAuliffe executive order bans guns in most state buildings”

  1. Cargosquid

    He argued that this will “reduce gun violence.” To quote him, he is “playing a petty, political game.”

    1. Cargo, anything to do with guns and politicians is political at this point and probably has been for the past 40 years.

      Can we just agree that it is political?

  2. Steve Thomas

    We’ll see if this order stands up to legal challenge…and there will be a legal challenge. The governor can issue executve orders, that do not conflict with existing law, or by the issuance of said order, create law.

    Under state code, there is no blanket prohibition of open-carry in state buildings. He has created one, and therefore, he has created law. But lets look at his order, and see what it says, shall we?:

    1. Establish a joint taskforce for prosecuting gun crimes. Is he admitting that there is a lax approach to prosecuting gun crimes? How about bringing back project exile? I think he’d find bipartisan support for this, even the NRA would support this. Verdict: purely political and will have no effect on crime, or prebent a mass-murder.

    2. “Universal Background Checks”: He cant do this. “Dealer” is defined under federal law. He cannot define who is a “dealer” in this state, absent a change in state law. He cannot institute a gun registry, which would be needed to track private sales. Verdict: He’s just throwing out a generic term, which is undefined, and is for purely political reasons. However his “taskforce” will recommend such action is needed, thus creating some fait accompli for any potential successor to try to push something at polls. He’s trying to “grease the rails” for Bloomberg in the future, a a quid pro quo.

    3. Authorize the AG to coordinate and bring criminal cases against firearms law offenders. Really? Does the AG need the governor’s permission to enforce the law? I don’t think so. But then again, when you are manufacturing “laws” out of whole-cloth, you might want to give the AG permission to enforce them. Verdict: This is a meaningless order, phrased to give the appearence of action, and thus, earn the Bloomberg money.

    4. Establish a tip-line for illegal gun activity. What the heck are we spending money for 911 if we need a special “bat phone” for guns? “Hello 911, state your emergency” “Er…yeah….I want to report a man with a gun…he’s..” “Sorry sir…you will have to call the new “Governor’s Gun Tip Line at 1-888-GUNSBAD, they have a special signal and everything that will cast an image of our governor on a cloud, and someone from the AG’s office or Everytown For Gun Safety will be calling you, for a press statement.”

    5. Trace Guns Used In Crime. This is one of the most insulting parts of this order. It implies that law enforcement doesn’t do this, if they think it would result in closing a case. If I were a cop, I’d be pissed.

    6. “Encourage” judges and prosecutors to seek forfetures in in felonies and “other cases”.

    Can someone point to the part of this order that deals with mental-illness? I mean, if you are going to abuse your power, at least point it at something most rationale people agree is a big part of the problem…ie “people who shouldn’t have guns”.

    What he is saying is he knows the law better than the judges, andthe prosecutors, and he needs to order them to do their jobs. What he’s also saying is if you have any chance at siezing someone’s property, take it, and let them sue to get it back. If you want to abuse your power, I’ve got your six, and you can point to my worthless executive order as justification.

    Really, though, his motives are quite transparent: In this November’s state legislature elections, he needs to hold every seat the dems currently have, and flip at least one more. Due to some poor choices for nominee in tageted races (Gary “stolen valor” Mccollum, just to name one), He needs to do something to justify the Bloomberg and Giffords money hanging out there, so he does this. He’s trying to demonstrate that he can beat the NRA, in the NRA’s backyard. He’s also angling to be Hillary’s running mate, if she’s successful. Considering that many pundits have called the Old Dominion as being the deciding state this cycle, T-Mac might just win this gambit, even if he loses this fight.

    I’ve got news for the governor: it ain’t just the NRA that he needs to worry about. The VCDL, GOA, VGOA, and the SAF will now focus their considerable grass roots influence to spur turn-out, and in an election with no state-wide top-ticket unifiying campaigns, politics gets VERY local, and turn-out is key.

    While this issue might not motivate democrats to turn out, it will motivate gun-owners and members of these various organizations to turn out. Look at how gun owners effected the election immediately following the enactment of the 1996 “Brady Bill”. There are more gun-owners now (many new owners) than there were then.

    And the big question, that no anti-2A politician can seem to answer: How will this prevent a mass-murder, or even impact general violent crime? hen asked this question, they default to the stock answer: “Well, we gotta do something”

    Now I am sure that some regulars on this blog will want to debate this until Jesus returns. In this case, I will let my comments stand on their own, and will refrain from responding. I am now too busy as an “activated grassroots NRA/GOA/SAF/VCDL member to respond to each comment.

    1. My comment is that I believe there is a great deal of overlap with the various gun advocacy groups. One man/one vote. I suppose its a matter of motivation. Many people feel that the public isn’t as involved in the anti gun violence movement as they should be. Perhaps critical mass hasn’t been hit yet. Evenually it will be. Not sure if that will be in my lifetime or not.

      I have other issues that are my sword to fall on. I don’t know why anyone would want someone swaggering in a state office building with an openly carried weapon. I find that kind of behavior inflammatory, unacceptable and dangerous. Seriously, where is the good reason to open carry in a state office?

  3. Steve Thomas

    @Cargosquid

    Cargo, check out some GREAT podcasts: Armed American Radio. Student of the Gun Radio. Lock and Load, Gun Talk. Fantastic resources for the Pro-2A American Patriot.

  4. Cargosquid

    @Steve Thomas
    Thanks…. I’ll google it. Here’s two back.
    http://gunblogvarietycast.com/

    http://sqrpt.com/

  5. Steve Thomas

    @Moon-howler
    Moon, at least in my experience someone might be a member of one or two groups, but few are members of all they could be. Some overlap but probably not as much as you think. Mostly it comes down to organization and approach. I know more than a few VCDL members who are not NRA members, as they don’t see it having a tight enough state focus, and I know more NRA members who aren’t VCDL members because they see them as purists. The best analogy I can think of is the RNC and the Tea Party.

    1. It sounds like the reason I would join NARAL or Planned Parenthood and not join NOW…Many women in the pro choice community feel that NARAL is the legislative approach to protecting reproductive rights and Planned Parenthood is the practical. NOW is full of all sorts of people wearing too many different hats. Its too complicated to even sort out. It doesn’t mean you aren’t a feminist, it just means you don’t want to deal with everyone else’s baggage.

      For the record, I don’t belong to any of those groups. I used to be a card carrying member of NARAL Now I just donate to issues. I am not even a member of a political party, My husband is.

  6. Steve Thomas

    @Moon-howler
    “I have other issues that are my sword to fall on. I don’t know why anyone would want someone swaggering in a state office building with an openly carried weapon. I find that kind of behavior inflammatory, unacceptable and dangerous. Seriously, where is the good reason to open carry in a state office?”

    Why would you find that “inflammatory”? Do you find the 2nd amendment offensive? With all of the recent hubbub regarding the Confederate flag, why didn’t the governor ban the wearing or display of the flag in state buildings by private citizens? Because the 1st amendment protects speech, and executive orders are only to apply to executive branch employees, and not to private citizens. If he wants to ban something, let him do it lawfully, by getting a bill passed in the GA.

    1. Why is it inflammatory? Because any time I have seen someone walking around with an intentionally exposed weapon, it has been 1. a nut case or 2. a hunter 3. Someone trying to be inflammatory

      Since I have no way to determine that said person isn’t a nut case, I would err on the side of caution and leave. I don’t find the 2nd amendment offensive. I find some people’s handling of it very offensive. I find the question offensive, as a matter of fact.

      Try wearing the confederate flag in the Capitol during the State of the Union address and see how far your first amendment rights get you. Try driving a car with a license tag bearing the confederate flag in about a month. Apparently the first amendment is somewhat negotiable. Try saying F-You to the wrong person and see how far those 1A rights extend. It’s all a matter of interpretation.

      If I walked into a DMV and someone was carrying a gun, I would leave. How do I know it isn’t someone going postal in the DMV? If I were going to go postal, that might be the perfect place.

      I am not debating the executive order decision. I basically don’t really care. I find that people’s like of executive orders is in direct proportion to how much the person likes what was ordered.

      Or, he could just blow it all off…the fact that Virginia has had more than it’s fair share of gun violence of national proportion.

  7. Steve Thomas

    @Moon-howler
    Never seen a gun on a cop’s duty belt? Most (except for bad guys and certain BLM protestors) find the site comforting. Why?

    There is a big difference from open-carry to brandishing. Brandishing is a crime, and I too wouldn’t stand for it.

    1. I am pretty sure I read that cops are excluded. We assume going in that cop are on our side. I am speaking of people I don’t know walking around with exposed weapons of varying size. Imagine walking in DMV to that. Its traumatic enough as it is.

      Maybe you can tell good guys from pad guys but I can’t.

  8. Starryflights

    I support Governor McAuliffe’s executive order. It will be good for Virginia.

  9. Cargosquid

    Open carry happens all across the state. 99% of the time, no one even notices.

    This is a solution in search of a problem.

    1. I notice open carry all the time and I do not like it. I leave.

      Cargo, I don’t have the same faith in gun carriers as you do. You can also add open carry knives and machetes to that list.

  10. Ed Myers

    Over the summer I went to an outdoor Dairy Queen stand and ordered with my family. We are alone when a guy with a gun strapped on comes up behind me with his female partner. I tell my family to quietly go to the car since the guy has a gun and must be a bit crazy to consider us or DQ a threat. He overhears and becomes argumentative in an attempt to justify open carry. I walk away to my car with my hands raised while he hurls insults. A good example of how open carry is an assault on civility. I returned to get my food after they leave with ice cream cones.

    I think any display of a gun in a public setting is brandishing, but that is not how the law is interpreted. That interpretation changes if the person is a young black teenager and then it is brandishing even if it is a bb gun. Social bias in action.

    If fighting word can be banned on public streets for safety reasons then guns can be banned using the same compelling state interest in safety.

    1. @Ed, I would have had the same reaction as you did at DQ other than I wouldn’t have put my hands up. I would have just left, if I didn’t know the person. I also consider it brandishing, even though I know legally it isn’t.

      I don’t even feel that way about holstered weapons. They don’t make me ill-at ease if the person is acting normally.

      Hunters don’t bother me either but I grew up in an area that was more hunting prone.

  11. Steve Thomas

    Starryflights :
    I support Governor McAuliffe’s executive order. It will be good for Virginia.

    While I am not surprised by your support, I am also not surprised in your belief that this would be “good for Virginia” absent any substantive argument to support such an assertion.

  12. blue

    I am stunned, stunned I say that this knucklehead would take unilateral action to restrict a constitutionally guaranteed right of citizens of this nation, while trying to give away the important – more important ? – rights of citizens to vote to illegal aliens. I will only be willing to listen to crazies like this knucklehead, when they are ready to protect and defend American citizenship.

  13. Cargosquid

    @Ed Myers
    Is this the same day as your alleged problem with a cop carrying a gun?

    Why don’t I believe you?
    Because if you truly felt in danger, you would have driven away and called the cops.

    Also: “That interpretation changes if the person is a young black teenager and then it is brandishing even if it is a bb gun.” Complete and utter bullshit.

    Because people of all races have been shot by cops because the cop thought the gun they saw was real and not a BB gun.

    Race has nothing to do with it.

  14. Cargosquid

    @Moon-howler
    See….now that is how one acts if they don’t like guns where they are.

    For a person that is sees all carriers of guns as actual threats……he sure likes to antagonize them. If he was so sure of his danger…..why do it?

    Or is this another “there I was….surrounded by gun owners…… in fear for my life…..” story?

  15. Pat.Herve

    In Israel, a shooting in a bus station. The shooter shot and killed a soldier and took the soldier’s M16. A well trained security guard shot and killed an innocent person, thinking he was a second shooter.

    This is what happens in the moment of chaos. Bad things happen. Innocent lives are taken. Sad.

  16. Steve Thomas

    @Moon-howler
    “I don’t even feel that way about holstered weapons. They don’t make me ill-at ease if the person is acting normally.”

    Um…Moon, you do realize that “holstered weapons” are what the Governor just banned, right? When we are talking about “open carry” in Virginia, that means a handgun, in a holster, in plain sight. If it’s not in plain sight, it’s concealed, and if it’s out of the holster in plain sight, and not being used to end or prevent a clear attack, then it is brandishing.

    Virginia restricts public open carry of loaded long-guns what essentially rural areas. I think you might be confused by those ill-advised statement-makers who were rolling into Starbucks in Texas and other places, with ARs, AK’s and Shotguns slung over their backs. with mags in them. That’s illegal in most areas under state statute, with exceptions for hunting.

  17. Steve Thomas

    @Pat.Herve
    “This is what happens in the moment of chaos. Bad things happen. Innocent lives are taken. Sad.”

    Yes, it is sad, and not surprising considering the attempt to terrorize the Israeli public. I am sure many security personnel are on edge.

  18. @Pat.Herve

    The by-standers also kicked the wounded person to death. Here the poor guy was shot mistakenly, then kicked to death.

    They didn’t even need to be armed to do him in.

  19. @Cargosquid

    I am not sure I agree that race has nothing to do with it.

    Depends on the person and the circumstances and yes, the location.

  20. @Cargosquid

    Truthfully, my reaction would have a lot to do with ….sigh…what the person looked like and how they were behaving.

    I think we are all pretty much like that.

  21. @Steve Thomas

    Here is the kicker…most of us who are not 2A-ers or anti-2A-ers really can’t make much sense of the law.

    If I see a weapon or a person who looks scary, I will leave. I guess I am not sure what brandishing means then.

    After my parents left Charlottesville, they spent many years in the Northern Neck. I have seen things in the NN that I thought were just normal good old boy stuff…that would scare the hell out of me up here in Northern VA.

    Some of those gun owners were scary also…don’t get me wrong…but it usually involved hunters getting liquored up.

    It was just an entirely different mentality down there. I almost couldn’t compare the two places.

  22. Ed Myers

    If gun owners had muskets then when one starts pouring gunpowder then that is brandishing. Or we can use the Andy Griffin rule: if you have the bullet out of your shirt pocket, you are brandishing. When the time between un-holstering and firing is less than a second the law in it’s current form is simply archaic and useless as a way to codify civil behavior. I do not have time to decide if a person with a gun is responsible or not. I think displaying a gun with the implication that it is loaded and read to use is itself a threat to civil order because it trumps freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and is a threat to life.

  23. BSinVA

    General question: Given the gun violence statistics from 2010.. The US had a rate of 10.5 gun related deaths per 100,000 population where Australia had a 0.86 per 100,000, Hong Kong a rate of 0.03 per 100k and Norway with a 1.78 per 100k. IF Australia, Hong Kong and Norway changed their gun laws to mirror ours, would their gun violence rates go down?

  24. BSinVA

    … CRICKETS …

  25. Cargosquid

    @BSinVA
    Wow….. crickets…during a work day. So…in other words..you would rater snark than respect the other readers.

    Their rates would not change appreciably either way. Because the existence of guns does not cause crime.
    It may or may not reduce crime, but it does not cause crime.

    1. Cargo said:
      …”Because the existence of guns does not cause crime.”

      I am not so sure you can convince anyone living in an inner city of that statement. I think there is a strong argument that the incidence of guns does cause crime.

  26. BSinVA

    I’m not talking about crime…. I’m talking about gun related violence.

  27. BSinVA

    … MORE CRICKETS (even louder than before) …

  28. BSinVA

    I think it is now obvious to all but the most intransigent that if there are more guns, there would be an increase in gun violence. If there were more knives, there would be an increase in knife violence. If there were more bats, there would be an increase in bat violence.

    It is just as obvious that if a society would decrease the number of guns, knives , bats, etc., the amount of weapon related violence would decrease. Certainly the number of weapon related deaths would decrease.

    If reduced violence in a society is the goal then all that society has to do is reduce the number of weapons in the hands of its members. If the peoples’ capacity to overthrow a corrupt government is also the goal, then all that society has to do is to ensure the voting rights of its citizenry and to enact a system of government that is centered around checks and balances.

    (Gauntlet thrown!)

  29. Cargosquid

    “I think it is now obvious to all but the most intransigent that if there are more guns, there would be an increase in gun violence.”

    Well, except for the lack of evidence…you would be right.

    Gun ownership has skyrocketed.
    Gun ownership and carry has gone up in Virginia while “gun violence” has gone down.

    “It is just as obvious that if a society would decrease the number of guns, knives , bats, etc., the amount of weapon related violence would decrease.”

    And how would you prevent criminals from committing violence?

    “If the peoples’ capacity to overthrow a corrupt government is also the goal, then all that society has to do is to ensure the voting rights of its citizenry and to enact a system of government that is centered around checks and balances.”

    I’m sorry…but how does one ensure that the voters elect a government that is centered around checks and balance? Our gov’t keeps grasping more and more power. Our voters keep voting in corrupt and incompetent people on purely emotional reasons. Our citizenry can’t describe what “checks and balances” means.

    And more importantly, if a gov’t becomes corrupt and unconstitutional enough that arms must be take up…..tell me how voting will fix that.

    (Gauntlet taken up)

  30. Cargosquid

    Moon-howler :
    Cargo said:
    …”Because the existence of guns does not cause crime.”
    I am not so sure you can convince anyone living in an inner city of that statement. I think there is a strong argument that the incidence of guns does cause crime.

    Then the argument is demonstrably wrong. The criminals use guns. The presence of guns do not cause crime. Otherwise, every place that has high gun ownership would be rife with crime. The problem with the inner city is that the wrong people have guns.

    We have a crime problem, not a gun problem. 110 million gun owners. 99.9996% of all gun owners did not murder anyone.

    BSinVA :
    I’m not talking about crime…. I’m talking about gun related violence.

    Gun violence? As opposed to …what? Regular violent crime?

    “Gun violence” can be broken down into:
    Criminal actions.
    Accidents.
    justified violence
    Suicide.

    The only ones that impose on another’s rights intentionally is criminal actions. All violence should be considered, not just “gun violence.”

    Accidents involving guns are at an all time low and is quite infrequent compared to the number of accidents in this country and the number of gun owners.

    Justified violence is justified.

    Suicide is complex. But it involves ALL suicide, not just “gun suicide.” Suicide rates do not change with access to guns. See other countries with similar or higher rates. See the rates in the early 80s vs now….. after increases in gun ownership….about the sam.
    50% of all suicide is committed with a gun. This is a nation where there are about 110 million gun owners, which equates to millions…. MILLIONS….. more that have access.
    Guns do not cause suicide.

    Also, there is the argument by some that suicide is a matter of choice. I am not making any argument for or against. I a merely pointing that out.

    1. Cargo, a gun housed in a locked gun cabinet harms no one. However, often a kid crime ridden neighborhood can be emboldened by having a gun to commit a crime.

      You know that though. Let’s not insult each other’s intelligence by arguing semantics. I don’t think we are trying to create bumper stickers for the NRA here. More crime is committed in neighborhoods where the wrong people have guns.

  31. Cargosquid

    (Gauntlet taken up)

    (Crickets……. )

  32. BSinVA

    Finally… Cargo the intransigent has shown up.

  33. Cargosquid

    @BSinVA
    Reallly?

    Because I I don’t see you changing any views in the face of reality.

  34. Cargosquid

    @Moon-howler
    “More crime is committed in neighborhoods where the wrong people have guns.”

    That’s just it.

    People are NOT emboldened to commit crimes just because they have guns in the house. Otherwise crime would be much more rampant. With 110 million gun owners, more teens would be “emboldened.”

    FBI statistics show that black males commit 48% of ALL murders and 55% of ALL robberies.
    However, black gun ownership is still at a fraction of white gun ownership. The black community is quite anti-gun, even though minority ownership and carry is the fastest growing demographic.

    My point is that there is high crime in the black community while there are actually few guns in the community’s hands. The problem is that criminals get guns for unlawful purposes. It is not that the presence of guns “emboldening” anyone to commit crime. That impulse is coming first.

    1. You are playing a semantics game. I am not sure we can really assess how black gun ownership. How do you go about arriving at those figures? After all, there is no registration of guns. News flash…all gun sales aren’t ever the counter legal.

      I have never found blacks to be anti-gun so where is that coming from?

  35. Cargosquid

    @Moon-howler
    I’m not playing at a semantics game.

    The FBI tables have the crime rates.
    Gun ownership is low in most black communities due to historical and legal reasons. Every blue city has gun control which was begun originally to restrict minorities from owning guns. See the Sullivan Act. It has to be anecdotal evidence that I’ve seen over the almost 20 years that I’ve been discussing “gun politics.” The rate of gun ownership by lawful citizens in the black community has been traditionally low.That is changing. Black communities saw guns as problems and thought gun control was a safety thing. That..and in places like Chicago, they knew that they were not going to get one legally. Same in NYC. And ESPECIALLY in DC. Racism is involved. Politics, racism, actually believing that citizens should not own guns, old laws, propaganda, etc….all drive a low…or perhaps a lower….gun ownership rate in those communities.

    Most gun sales are over the counter. Some are legal private sales. Illegal sales happen regardless of gun control.

    1. Cargo, I think you are probably the only person who believes what you just said.

      The Sullivan Act was passed in 1911. Don’t you think there has been enough time passed for the politics of gun ownership to have evolved? You are putting words in the black communities mouths.

      As for illegal gun sales–it is much easier to have illegal gun sales if one state has very lax laws. Criminals from other states with strict laws can go to the lax state and buy up merchandise, and head back out towards home with a truck load of what is soon to become contraband.

      Lastly, if there is no gun registration, you don’t really know who has what. Additionally, even if there is gun registration, you don’t know. You especially don’t know in the black community because they aren’t going to tell you their business.

  36. Cargosquid

    Actually the rates have changed in 2013.

    https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/tables/table-43

    White murder arrest rate: 45.3 (if you count Latino as white: 46.3) Robbery: 41.9 ( 50.3)
    Black murder arrest rate: 52.2 Robbery: 56.4
    From the FBI:
    Concerning murder victims for whom race was known, 51.7 percent were black, 45.7 percent were white, and 2.5 percent were of other races. Race was unknown for 147 victims. (Based on Expanded Homicide Data Table 2.)

    An examination of data regarding the offenders for whom race was known showed that 53.6 percent were black, 43.9 percent were white, and 2.5 percent were of other races. The race was unknown for 4,112 offenders. (Based on Expanded Homicide Data Table 3.)

  37. Cargosquid

    @Moon-howler
    It is general knowledge that gun control has racist roots.
    All of it is an attempt to control people that are not connected politically.

    If the lax laws make it easier to have “illegal sales,” and by that, I mean for criminals to buy guns illegally…not the average citizen trying to buy a gun…but didn’t jump through the state’s infringement rules….. then the states with such laws would have more crime.

    Criminals that have no knowledge of the “source” states are going to go to those states and do what? Buy them over the counter? Find some private citizen?

    The thoughts on gun ownership in the black community come from interviews I’ve seen with black community leaders and the average person on the street. It also comes from the fact that a huge number of blacks live in gun control cities…and until recently, were prevented from exercising their rights. I am putting no words into the mouths of the black community.

    Gun control started as control of minorities, including the new immigrants. Those laws stayed on the books. And they are still on the books, merely rewritten to remove the racial connotations. For instance, the Sullivan Act is still in force. One of the main reasons that the National Firearms Act was passed was due to the fact that the unions were arming themselves to protect themselves against the strike breakers and the cops. The Bonus Army scared the heck out of the authorities. They were well armed. And then the Valentine’s Day Massacre happened, providing a premise for infringement. And gun control has followed that path ever since.

    Newsworthy shooting. Push for gun control. Over and over.

    1. I believe Virginia blacks, especially ones living in rural areas, all have guns. There is a huge hunting tradition.

      The union coal miners down in southwest still are scary. This is recent. They used road jacks and guns. I don’t think the state police looked forward to coal field duty.

  38. Cargosquid

    @Moon-howler
    Then let me be more clear.

    Urban black communities are less pro-gun.

    When bigots place the blame on race for crime it is quite easy to disprove. It is clear to see that crime in black urban communities is not caused by race, but by thug culture and the drug war. The crime rate of rural blacks and whites are similar, low, and as low as most in Europe. By “crime rate” I mean murder. The violent crime rate is MUCH lower than Europe.

    1. I am not sure how you separate all of those factors out to even draw that conclusion.

      Of course “race” doesn’t cause any crime. However, the socio-economic indicators that often accompany race or ethnicity blur lines.

      A wealthy Italian boy in NY City probably wouldn’t become a criminal and a thug like Al Capone did either. His parents would have sequestered him away from the bad influences and rougher elements long before it even became an issue. The Irish Mafia wouldn’t have been after him either.

Comments are closed.