Racism and apathy in NJ legislature

Terrible (0.00 / 0)

This is the worse posting of an article I have ever read on BlueJersey. Facts are wrong, connections between gun ownership and racism unfounded, and the refernce to [being] "searched without cause, at least 2 dozen times in NYC during the Giuliani reign of terror" is not relevant to New Jersey.

---

by: SouthJerseyDem @ Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 15:10:52 PM UTC

what? (0.00 / 0)

There really isn't any legal background, here, so what I think you're saying is that the state should be obligated to provide every citizen who wants one a permit to carry a concealed gun ("shall") rather than being able to selectively issue such permits based on meeting a given set of criteria ("may").

If that is correct, I have a follow-up.  Are you crazy?

---

by: Somewhere In The Swamps @ Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 15:50:34 PM UTC

1 question for you both (0.00 / 0)

Do you, or have you ever lived or worked in the "hood"?

If you are unsure of what I mean, your reactions to my post are understandable.

---

by: tortoise @ Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 16:30:12 PM UTC

yes (0.00 / 0)

I have.  But how could anyone be unsure of what you mean?  Your condescension was not vague.  I still think the claim that the answer to violence is more guns is nuts.

And I apologize for what I wrote before.  I somehow forgot to include 'totally fucking' between 'you' and 'crazy'.

---

by: Somewhere In The Swamps @ Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 16:43:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

to answer your question (0.00 / 0)

"selectively issue such permits based on meeting a given set of criteria"

That is exactly the point, there is NO given set of criteria. The fact is it is completly subjective. Which is why "may issue" is unequal application of the law.

---

by: tortoise @ Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 16:47:10 PM UTC

Please (0.00 / 0)

refrain from using vulgarity.

---

by: tortoise @ Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 16:50:38 PM UTC

Required reading on racism and gun rights (0.00 / 0)

title: Black Man with a gun.
and
title: More guns less crime.

Both are filled with hard confirmed data supplied by the FBI etc.

---

by: tortoise @ Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 16:57:43 PM UTC

If I may step-in a moment (3.00 / 1)

It is certainly true that the earliest laws on the continent that targeted the widespread use of weapons was targeted against slaves.  Nat Turner made sure that whites understood that armed slaves had nothing to lose and everything to gain.

You ask what has changed?  Well, today's laws do not state, "No Black person shall be able to carry a weapon..."  There is a problem of multi-correlationism in your conclusion that current gun control legislation is based on racism, though.  A high concentration of minorities does not lead to anti-gun laws.  A (perceived) high crime rate most often precedes gun laws by several years.  Most often, areas with high crime rates are also areas with a high concentration of poor people.  America being what it is, that often correlates with a high concentration of minorities.

But it is wrong to say that race is the deciding factor with gun laws.  Houston, for example, is large enough to be the 36th most populous state if it were independent - and less than 50% of Houston is white.  However, there are very lax gun laws in Texas - and you are more likely to be murdered in Houston (or Atlanta, for that matter) than in New York City.

Having more guns does not, in fact, deter crime.  It merely raises the stakes for desperate individuals.  It makes it more likely that, when a crime occurs, deadly force will be used.

You are correct, though, in stating that gun control laws, by themselves, do not make things safer.  Putting more police on the streets does not necessarily make things safer.  The best proven way to reduce crime and make the streets safer is to have a thriving economy that creates opportunities for people to move ahead in life through legitimate means.

My brother was shot in Louisianna and again in Kansas City a few years later.  It is highly unlikely that having a gun would have stopped either person - one was over a woman and one was a robbery.  If he'd had a gun, the first incident would have resulted in a guaranteed death and the second one would likely have resulted in him being shot before he got close enough to beat his attacker with a six-pack of beer.

I have, at times, lived and worked in areas where whites are the minority and everyone is poor - including working construction in one of the most gang-ridden neighborhoods in Newark.  I, honestly, never felt threatened.  Of all the people in the neighborhood, I represented the lowest level of threat to anyone there.  Within a week, I was well-known and accepted as a neighbor like everyone else.

Self-defense is, indeed, a right.  In the few times when I actually needed to physically defend myself, I was able to do so without any problem using my hands - and, in one occasion, a bag of trash.  The idea that a gun makes you safer neglects the fact that it can be taken away, the other guy can have a bigger gun (or can be faster on the draw), that most people don't hit what they are shooting at when they fire a handgun, and that weapons must be properly maintained to function properly.

Guns are beautiful things - and in the right hands, they are the greatest force for peace ever known.  In the wrong hands, they simply seal the deal for a bully.  In negligent or untrained hands, they are a threat to every person in range.

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 18:07:20 PM UTC

Without intending to... (4.00 / 1)

...legitimize your diary by actually responding to it, I wish to only make one point.

For the sake of argument, let's assume that anything stated as fact in this diary is actually true.

Is it at all possible (if not, in fact, likely) that the reason for tougher gun control legislation in places like NYC, Camden, Washington DC, etc. is not due to racism, i.e., "the fact that those locations are predominantly black", but instead attributable to the fact that they are predominantly high-population-density areas, hence "a few accidental shootings," as you call them, are significantly more likely to result in harm to an innocent bystander than an accidental shooting in a lower-density suburban or rural environment?

---

by: dennisl @ Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 18:24:48 PM UTC

Thank you Xpat Texan and Dennis (0.00 / 0)

I do appreciate both of your responses very much.
I agree with most of what you both have written. (truly)
That said I have my own personal sad stories to tell 2 of my best friends (literally, not acquantances) un-armed sisters were shot, on entirely different un-related occasions 1 died the other survived. This I know for sure 1 had she had the option of carrying for self defense, she might be alive today, the other one it would have been a 50/50.
XPat Texan the reality is a properly trained, licensed firearm holder is safer than an un-armed citizen.

---

by: tortoise @ Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 21:15:46 PM UTC

Re (0.00 / 0)

If you qualify it with "sometimes", I might go along with your statement. But everyone around anyone with a gun is at greater risk for them having it.

What right do you have to endager everyone else so you can gain a marginal perception of greater safety yourself? 

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 22:06:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Um (0.00 / 0)

This I know for sure 1 had she had the option of carrying for self defense, she might be alive today, the other one it would have been a 50/50.

You might want to work on your English usage and grammar.  I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to say.

One "might" be alive and the other is "50/50".  Not exactly good odds if you ask me.

If both of them had weapons, who else might have been injured?

---

by: Hudson Observer @ Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 01:35:58 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

South Jersey's input (0.00 / 0)

refernce to [being] "searched without cause, at least 2 dozen times in NYC during the Giuliani reign of terror" is not relevant to New Jersey

It could be if that Neocon, civil right violating, ignoramus wins the Presidency.

---

by: tortoise @ Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 21:37:53 PM UTC

Facts not feelings (0.00 / 0)

Repat Texan;
The hard data supports what I assert.

Please read Black man with a gun. and More guns less crime.

The notion you assert is based on your feelings not the facts, which are those citizens that are not denied their civil rights to self defense ("shall issue" instead of the uneven application of law;"may issue") and have passed a backgound check (non-felon, no mental issue, domestic violence etc), have received the same firearms training law enforcement recieives (NRA certified instructor), becoming concealed carry weapons holders, the data (from FBI and Police reports; illustrated in the 2 books I have suggested) that firearms are used succesfully in defending life and property very often without a shot being fired. Further "shall issue" concealed carry which is law in 40 states, starting in 1988, did not result in traffic dispute shootouts that some predicted.

In fact the average CCW holder is MORE law abiding than the average citizen per capita.

Data is what convinces me.

Self defense is a civil right.

---

by: tortoise @ Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 00:04:15 AM UTC

No, it's not (0.00 / 0)

It's a very simple concept: possessing a gun drastically increases your capability of killing someone.  Rather than following a slippery slope upwards towards a society where everybody totes around two Uzis for protection, we can take the opposite approach and end up in a society where no one owns any firearms.  Which do you think is safer?  I'm sure that a given person, such as yourself, may be extremely responsible with a gun and it wouldn't do any harm to relax the requirements in that person's particular case; however, when taken as an aggregate, people are not sufficiently responsible to justify such a move.  In fact, the crime rate would meteorically rise in such a case, as the potential to murder vastly increases.  Logic similar to that which you are using led to WWI: armaments proliferated as nations wanted to defend themselves until a breaking point was reached and a bloodbath ensued.  This may also happen when gun ownership rapidly climbs.  Having a gun may make the owner safer, but it makes everyone else less safe; while "self-defense," vaguely defined, may be a right, putting the lives of others in danger is NOT a right.  As to the book you cite, although the data is correct, the conclusions predicated on that data are fallacious.  For example, one review of the book from the New England Journal of Medicine states:

"The central problem is that crime moves in waves, yet Lott's analysis does not include variables that can explain these cycles. For example, he uses no variables on gangs, drug consumption, or community policing. As a result, many of Lott's findings make no sense. He finds, for example, that both increasing the rate of unemployment and reducing income reduces the rate of violent crimes and that reducing the number of black women 40 years old or older (who are rarely either perpetrators or victims of murder) substantially reduces murder rates. Indeed, according to Lott's results, getting rid of older black women will lead to a more dramatic reduction in homicide rates than increasing arrest rates or enacting shall-issue laws."

---

by: Begoner @ Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 00:37:27 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well (0.00 / 0)

forgive me if I don't jump up to get two specific books.  From my criminal justice courses, I remember several debates with people who have spent their lives researching the issue.  Not a single one of them found any evidence strong enough to convince them that guns actually make people safer.

I suggest you follow the links I provided.  What I wrote is backed up by data.  But if you've closed your mind to it, then it doesn't matter.

No one has ever said self-defense is not a right.  But carrying deadly force is not.  You continue to try to make an argument out of something no one is disputing.

What you are ignoring is the statement I made - a weapon can make one person safe, but it endangers everyone around them.  Do some research into the crime statistics in the state of Florida after they passed their "shall carry" law.  Attacks against residents declined - but tourists were more often targeted and were subjected to higher levels of force that previously.

But, like I said, if you've already made up your mind, then it doesn't matter.

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Sun Sep 30, 2007 at 03:08:09 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

You provide.... (0.00 / 0)

NO DATA! You provide only anecdotal evidence! You are like the Michael Moore of the NRA on this argument providing weak connections and personal experience with no evidence! To say that guns laws are racist does not take into account classism. Thank you Dennis and Texas, you both rightly point out not everything targeting minorities are targeting their race but economic class.

The NJ Assembly passed a bill allowing a person to buy only one gun a month. This is not targeting African Americans in New Jersey and it is definitely not preventing gun violence but it may deter an individual from creating another Virginia Tech shooting.

Also another example, 2/3 of all guns used in violent crimes in Camden were purchased in Pennsylvania. Would you say that New Jersey guns laws are racist for preventing the sale of guns to potential criminals or could an argument be made that Pennsylvania guns laws are racist by allowing the violence to continue?

---

by: SouthJerseyDem @ Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 16:02:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Easy there (0.00 / 0)

big fella!  Excitability in a gun owner makes the rest of us a little nervous......

One Vote.  Yours.  It really does matter.

---

by: carolh @ Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 22:05:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

pardon me I meant XpatTexan (0.00 / 0)

---

by: tortoise @ Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 00:06:44 AM UTC

Reality of what is... (0.00 / 0)

Begoner you say:
"Rather than following a slippery slope upwards towards a society where everybody totes around two Uzis for protection, we can take the opposite approach and end up in a society where no one owns any firearms.  Which do you think is safer?"

I say zero guns anywhere in the world is safer and what I truly would prefer.

Now to reality: There are hundreds of millions of guns in America today.
What is your plan for that reality?

NJ Politicians because they are either racist or apathetic, or maybe criminals at heart themselves are denying NJ citizens their civil rights to self defense.

ps: The Burma government and North Korean government have banned firearms in their countries and murder citizens every day...you want the Bushwacks banning guns owned by citizens here, I'm sorry your ban guns pitch is dangerous to me.

Isn't it bad enough they stole an election and sent innocent citizens to die in a war (Iraq) that is ALL about some Bushwack oil business and you want to give them MORE control.
Good luck to you.

---

by: tortoise @ Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 03:02:34 AM UTC

Please (0.00 / 0)

NJ Politicians because they are either racist or apathetic, or maybe criminals at heart themselves are denying NJ citizens their civil rights to self defense.

Provide some verifiable data of this hypothesis or shut the hell up.

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Sun Sep 30, 2007 at 03:09:28 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Civil Right vs. Civil Liberty (0.00 / 0)

Tortoise before you start using the constitution as the foundation for your argument I think you should learn the definition of civil right and start using it properly.

"NJ Politicians because they are either racist or apathetic, or maybe criminals at heart themselves are denying NJ citizens their CIVIL RIGHT to self defense."

The right to bear arms is CIVIL LIBERTY! Until you understand the difference between a civil right and civil liberty you have zero credibility and your argument does not hold up!

---

by: SouthJerseyDem @ Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 16:17:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

3 facts. (0.00 / 0)

"May issue" is an instrument of Old South oppression.

"May issue" is unequal application of the law.

"May issue" is what is currently law in NJ.

---

by: tortoise @ Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 03:03:32 AM UTC

No Data (0.00 / 0)

You provide no facts! You only provide anecdotal evidence! You are like the Michael Moore of the NRA on this argument providing weak connections and personal experience with no evidence! To say that guns laws are racist does not take into account classism. Thank you Dennis and Texas, you both rightly point out not everything targeting minorities are targeting their race but economic class.
The NJ Assembly passed a bill allowing a person to buy only one gun a month. This is not targeting African Americans in New Jersey and it is definitely not preventing gun violence but it may deter an individual from creating another Virginia Tech shooting.

Also another example, 2/3 of all guns used in violent crimes in Camden were purchased in Pennsylvania. Would you say that New Jersey guns laws are racist for preventing the sale of guns to potential criminals or could an argument be made that Pennsylvania guns laws are racist by allowing the violence to continue?

---

by: SouthJerseyDem @ Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 16:19:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Local vs. State (0.00 / 0)

"Today look at "gun control" in Wash DC, LA, Camden, Newark, NYC...what's changed?"

The issue of gun control also is regulated by the State, not Newark and not Camden. Therefore, gun control is exactly the same for residents in Camden, Newark, Moorestown, Cherry Hill, Princeton, and Hoboken. So, in your estimation how does gun control affect the minorities of Newark and Camden more than the white residents of Hoboken?

How would you explain more gun violence in Camden then Haddonfield? If you are saying they do not have the same ability to arm themselves in Camden due to racism in the law and the vast majority of the residents of Camden being minority, then why would Haddonfield be safer all the while having few individuals owning guns and being white?

---

by: SouthJerseyDem @ Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 16:27:49 PM UTC

When guns are around (0.00 / 0)

and easily available, SOMEONE is in more danger of getting shot.  It just isn't usually the person who got it for self defense. 

At the risk of being attacked for bringing up anecdotal evidence: 
One 15 year old I knew well committed suicide with his fathers gun.  Another kid from my home town took his father's gun and shot himself accidentally, then hid the gun - in the woods nearby my house.  I wasn't too thrilled about that. 

My family has a lot of hunters in it.  That is one thing.  Proper safety and training happen when the kids are small. 

But handguns and AK47's are a completely different matter. 

You have the right to bear arms - but not the right to an AK47.  Not in this day and age of increased incidence of suicide.  We have to come to grips with the fact that mental illness coexists in society with the means for one individual to harm many. 

I also don't think someone who took a few classes and put a handgun in her purse to "feel safer"  is going to be a match for the thug who accosts her when she tries to use the thing. 

How many stories do we need to hear about a little kid shooting his best friend with the parent's weapon?  Or about a criminal who overpowers the victim and uses the gun against them?  Or about a family member going through a rough time who takes their own life with their brother's gun?  I know families DESTROYED by incidents like this.

Time to think about not just GUNS or PEOPLE, but both at the same time.

One Vote.  Yours.  It really does matter.

---

by: carolh @ Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 22:26:29 PM UTC

20/20 Interviews (0.00 / 0)

20/20 conducted a number of interviews with incarcerated persons; these individulas confirmed common sense; the #1 fear they all (of those interviewed/for the benefit of the "legalman" amongst us, who suppresses the truth on technacalities) have is they fear their potential victim may be armed.

---

by: tortoise @ Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 00:48:07 AM UTC

They were still incarcerated weren't they? (0.00 / 0)

It appears that the fear didn't stop them from committing the crime. 

Your deterrent theory needs a little more work.

One Vote.  Yours.  It really does matter.

---

by: carolh @ Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 11:21:19 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

20/20 (0.00 / 0)

Didn't know interviews were so concrete. I guess the next time I'm watching Bill O'Reilly I should believe everything he says in his interviews.

Also, you have yet to counter any of my previous arguments.

---

by: SouthJerseyDem @ Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 14:19:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Paterson NJ woman wards off intruder with Pistol (0.00 / 0)

"They were still incarcerated weren't they? (0.00 / 0)
It appears that the fear didn't stop them from committing the crime. 
Your deterrent theory needs a little more work."

If they get shot, they usually don't "complete the crime".

Herald news, reported in Paterson, NJ a woman came home to find an unknown man in her house, she grabbed her husbands pistol and fired at him, the assailant ran out of her home.

http://www.northjers...

Would you prefer she were beaten, raped and murdered?

---

by: tortoise @ Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 16:31:36 PM UTC

Talk about a "loaded" question.... (0.00 / 0)

My point is this:

The possibility of guns in someone's home is NOT a deterrent to crime.  The perpetrators still attempt the crimes. 

Ask a police officer how often that scene you described actually turns out that way. 

It is more likely that a gun is stolen or used against another member of the household accidentally or on purpose, than it would be used in a situation like occurred in Paterson.

Going on "anecdotal" evidence is no worse than using one case and basing an entire argument on it. 
 

One Vote.  Yours.  It really does matter.

---

by: carolh @ Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 18:58:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Good thing hubby wasn't carrying it outside the house .. (0.00 / 0)

y'know, Tort, nobody here thinks you're at all right or in the least interesting and that's not gonna change ... the door is to your left.

---

by: denniscmcgrath @ Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 19:12:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Facts please (0.00 / 0)

"It is more likely that a gun is stolen or used against another member of the household accidentally or on purpose, than it would be used in a situation like occurred in Paterson."

Where do you get your MIS-information.

Reminds me of the WMD's in IRAQ.

"May issue" concealed carry is an instrument of Old South oppression.
"May issue" concealed carry is unequal application of the law.
"May issue" concealed carry is what is currently law in NJ.

Self defense is a civil right.
 

---

by: tortoise @ Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 22:09:22 PM UTC

No wonder (0.00 / 0)

you picked "tortoise" as a name - you're about as slow as your namesake.

"Lots of things" were first done in the Old South.

"Lots of things" are unequal application of laws.

"Lots of things" are currently law in NJ.

Being a complete dumb-ass is also a civil right.  As Oliver Wendell Holmes said, "Every man has the right to go to Hell in his preferred manner."

If you want to convince anyone, then you are going to have to provide some evidence for your statements.  Correlation is not causation.

---

by: Hudson Observer @ Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 01:32:41 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Free speach (0.00 / 0)

Good thing hubby wasn't carrying it outside the house .. (0.00 / 0)
y'know, Tort, nobody here thinks you're at all right or in the least interesting and that's not gonna change ... the door is to your left.

We all know what the second and fourteenth amendments of the US Constitution say, we also know what article 1 of NJ's state constitution says. "May issue" is an unequal apllication of law and clearly in violation of all of those mentioned.

It appears by your post you seek to ban free speech as well.

---

by: tortoise @ Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 22:23:16 PM UTC

Not Banning Free Speech! (0.00 / 0)

Just banning your ridiculous argument!

AND-

STOP USING CIVIL RIGHTS WHEN YOU MEAN TO USE CIVIL LIBERTY! THERE IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE!!!!

Stop with the may issue and shall issue statements, that wording does not matter! It does not reinforce your argument, especially based on your lack of legal knowledge on civil rights and liberties!

---

by: SouthJerseyDem @ Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 14:09:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

South Jersey Dem said (0.00 / 0)

"STOP USING CIVIL RIGHTS WHEN YOU MEAN TO USE CIVIL LIBERTY! THERE IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE!!!!"

You are in fact 100% correct, my error.

Should be Civil Liberties.

ps: to the poster making fun of my grammer,
I have literally slept on the streets, been on welfare and today am a multi-millionaire many times over, grammer is important however it is not a pre-requisite for success or a gauge of intelligence. I have made a lot of money in my life by playing dumb.

---

by: tortoise @ Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 01:25:58 AM UTC