Gun Policy Research

[Belsnickel]

tl;dr: The NRA has been stifling gun violence research for 20 years and it is why we don't have a viable solution for curbing gun violence in our country.

So, it's no secret that gun control tends to become a hot button issue every time a mass shooting occurs, and sometimes it randomly crops up as well. We know that there are a number of different methods that are discussed to reduce gun deaths in the country.

• Enhancing and strengthening NICS
• "Assault weapons" bans
• Reducing access to the mentally ill
  

And that could go on with the different nuances that are discussed. The problem is, we don't know the effectiveness. There was a study by Lott that said (literally, in its title) More Guns, Less Crime. That study has been called into question with further research. The effectiveness on expanding background checks to private sales, licensing for ownership, all of these things is questionable. There are studies on them, but nothing conclusive as to what would actually cause a benefit. Sure, violent crime, including homicides, have been dropping since the 90s (though they have been steady for a couple years), but we are still at a higher rate than our fellow developed nations. Some do attribute this to a rise in the number of guns available, which that number has risen, but the number of households with firearms has decreased. Then there is the question of the root causes, because let's be honest, firearm availability is only a proximate cause to gun violence. Socioeconomic issues can be the root cause for many, problem is that we don't know.

Gun violence in this country should be a major concern, so why is it that we don't know much about it?

In 1996, there was an amendment attached to a bill by a many named Dickey that prevented the CDC funding from being used to promote gun control. Now, Dickey's own words are that what happened after was not the intended effect (and probably why he now regrets he ever drafted this). This has effectively ended gun violence research in this country. There is an average of $5 million spent on gun violence research, almost entirely by private donors (who are also hesitant to spend on it because of the political climate). To give you an idea, one HIV study can cost that much, and we lose many more Americans to gun violence than we do HIV. Even though the amendment does not cut funding for gun violence research, Congress did that the following year, and directors since then have not bucked that trend. This is due to, in large part, lobbying and spending efforts by the NRA.

The issue is that we have an issue in this country that needs to be researched. There needs to be something done, and it may not even be gun control, but we don't know until there is adequate research. Anyone that tells you something will or will not work for certain is full of it, and don't let them convince you otherwise, because they don't have the data to back them up. I know, I'm sitting with a stack of the data that is out there. Maybe it doesn't need to be the CDC, maybe it is some other research avenue, but we need to be doing research on this so we can find out the appropriate policy solutions.

Sorry, I took a break from my research to go on a bit of a rant. I just figured I would throw this out there for anyone interested in it. Now back to your regularly scheduled bickering.

[Dill]

(06-22-2017, 03:24 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: In 1996, there was an amendment attached to a bill by a many named Dickey that prevented the CDC funding from being used to promote gun control. Now, Dickey's own words are that what happened after was not the intended effect (and probably why he now regrets he ever drafted this). This has effectively ended gun violence research in this country. There is an average of $5 million spent on gun violence research, almost entirely by private donors (who are also hesitant to spend on it because of the political climate). To give you an idea, one HIV study can cost that much, and we lose many more Americans to gun violence than we do HIV. Even though the amendment does not cut funding for gun violence research, Congress did that the following year, and directors since then have not bucked that trend. This is due to, in large part, lobbying and spending efforts by the NRA.

The issue is that we have an issue in this country that needs to be researched. There needs to be something done, and it may not even be gun control, but we don't know until there is adequate research. Anyone that tells you something will or will not work for certain is full of it, and don't let them convince you otherwise, because they don't have the data to back them up. I know, I'm sitting with a stack of the data that is out there. Maybe it doesn't need to be the CDC, maybe it is some other research avenue, but we need to be doing research on this so we can find out the appropriate policy solutions.

Well said. Your "rant" brings us to the point where we can see a problem behind the problem--namely the stifling of research into gun violence.  So the issue really is that there is sufficient political will and power to prevent this research from going forward, from finding answers which could be the basis of sound policy.

As is the case with so many other social problems, there are groups who wish to keep the fog in place. If no one knows for sure, then there is no basis for policy change. Which groups? Who benefits from the fog? What interests find the status quo preferable to policies which could reduce thousands of deaths, accidental or otherwise?

One question--if you are sitting on "a stack of the data that is out there," then why can't you use it or make it available to those who can?

[GMDino]

(06-22-2017, 03:24 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: tl;dr: The NRA has been stifling gun violence research for 20 years and it is why we don't have a viable solution for curbing gun violence in our country.

So, it's no secret that gun control tends to become a hot button issue every time a mass shooting occurs, and sometimes it randomly crops up as well. We know that there are a number of different methods that are discussed to reduce gun deaths in the country.

• Enhancing and strengthening NICS
• "Assault weapons" bans
• Reducing access to the mentally ill
  

And that could go on with the different nuances that are discussed. The problem is, we don't know the effectiveness. There was a study by Lott that said (literally, in its title) More Guns, Less Crime. That study has been called into question with further research. The effectiveness on expanding background checks to private sales, licensing for ownership, all of these things is questionable. There are studies on them, but nothing conclusive as to what would actually cause a benefit. Sure, violent crime, including homicides, have been dropping since the 90s (though they have been steady for a couple years), but we are still at a higher rate than our fellow developed nations. Some do attribute this to a rise in the number of guns available, which that number has risen, but the number of households with firearms has decreased. Then there is the question of the root causes, because let's be honest, firearm availability is only a proximate cause to gun violence. Socioeconomic issues can be the root cause for many, problem is that we don't know.

Gun violence in this country should be a major concern, so why is it that we don't know much about it?

In 1996, there was an amendment attached to a bill by a many named Dickey that prevented the CDC funding from being used to promote gun control. Now, Dickey's own words are that what happened after was not the intended effect (and probably why he now regrets he ever drafted this). This has effectively ended gun violence research in this country. There is an average of $5 million spent on gun violence research, almost entirely by private donors (who are also hesitant to spend on it because of the political climate). To give you an idea, one HIV study can cost that much, and we lose many more Americans to gun violence than we do HIV. Even though the amendment does not cut funding for gun violence research, Congress did that the following year, and directors since then have not bucked that trend. This is due to, in large part, lobbying and spending efforts by the NRA.

The issue is that we have an issue in this country that needs to be researched. There needs to be something done, and it may not even be gun control, but we don't know until there is adequate research. Anyone that tells you something will or will not work for certain is full of it, and don't let them convince you otherwise, because they don't have the data to back them up. I know, I'm sitting with a stack of the data that is out there. Maybe it doesn't need to be the CDC, maybe it is some other research avenue, but we need to be doing research on this so we can find out the appropriate policy solutions.

Sorry, I took a break from my research to go on a bit of a rant. I just figured I would throw this out there for anyone interested in it. Now back to your regularly scheduled bickering.

All true, but old news.  And those who think every gun law is an attempt to start toward the disarming of 'Murica will argue up one side and down the other that we don't need research because who cares?  It's a god given right!

All seriousness aside the fact that the NRA was able to get this has also dumbfounded me.

[Belsnickel]

(06-22-2017, 04:00 PM)Dill Wrote: Well said. Your "rant" brings us to the point where we can see a problem behind the problem--namely the stifling of research into gun violence.  So the issue really is that there is sufficient political will and power to prevent this research from going forward, from finding answers which could be the basis of sound policy.

As is the case with so many other social problems, there are groups who wish to keep the fog in place. If no one knows for sure, then there is no basis for policy change. Which groups? Who benefits from the fog? What interests find the status quo preferable to policies which could reduce thousands of deaths, accidental or otherwise?

One question--if you are sitting on "a stack of the data that is out there," then why can't you use it or make it available to those who can?

There is data and research that exists, but it isn't adequate. I should have said a stack of research, not data, my apologies. In rant mode my fingers can move faster than my brain. Anyway, there is minimal data that is collected by law enforcement, but it is all partial. Since there are not adequate reporting standards, it can be difficult to gain a solid data set. Then there is the research. The research is very limited because the data is limited. You can't dig below the surface to really get to the meat of the situation and any attempts to are based on assumptions using proxies that could be known variables if we had the data.

As for me using the research in front of me, I am. I'm crafting a policy memo as part of a class. The issue is that if I were to present it to our current government, it would be ignored. It would never even make it to Dearborn's desk. But I plan to keep up with this as I go through my academic career because I think it is an interesting issue, and maybe one day I will be able to present it to someone that will give a damn.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

Viable solution to curbing gun violence in our country:
Step 1: Eradicate gangs.
Step 2: Stop counting suicides as "gun violence".

Done.

[Belsnickel]

(06-22-2017, 04:25 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Viable solution to curbing gun violence in our country:
Step 1: Eradicate gangs.
Step 2: Stop counting suicides as "gun violence".

Done.

Okay, how do we eradicate gangs? And then, how do we curb the other 90% of firearm homicides in the country?

For suicides, I don't typically count them as gun violence, but they are gun deaths, and they are a problem.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(06-22-2017, 04:33 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Okay, how do we eradicate gangs? And then, how do we curb the other 90% of firearm homicides in the country?

For suicides, I don't typically count them as gun violence, but they are gun deaths, and they are a problem.

Lol, as if 90% aren't gang-related. In 2015 there were ~13,000 gun homicides, in Chicago alone that year there were 424 gun homicides (it was much worse in 2016). That alone is 3.26% of the entire countries gun homicides from just ONE city. If you think the entire rest of the country will only combine for ~6.74%, then I would like some of what you're having.

Federally legalize marijuana and any similar non-lethal drug. Making it illegal is doing more harm than good, while funding criminal organizations. Just think about those 8 people who were murdered in Ohio by the cartels because they were growing marijuana in the woods behind their homes. Silly for things like that to happen over pot. Save government resources to track down and destroy meth labs, and heroin smugglers.

Make larger efforts to lock down the Mexican border. I'm not saying a wall, but there is massive amounts of lethal drugs flowing into the country from the border. Also create much harsher penalties for drug smugglers crossing the border to dissuade people who might otherwise be willing to risk it.

- - - - -

Then at the risk of being called racist for pointing out facts, you need to do something about the current black culture, which idolizes drugs and murder.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl03.xls

This is from 2010, but it shows that out of the 10,870 gun murder victims whose attacker's race was known, 5,770 of them were African American. That is at least 53.1% of them committed by 12.6% of the population, which gets worse when you realize that about 90% of the murderers were male. So if those numbers hold up from previously, about 48% of the gun murders in the country are committed by black males, who are (admittedly just halving the black population in half on this one, assuming 50/50 split) 6.3% of the population. Or over represented by about 7.6 times.


- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Most things that put out numbers for gun violence generally include suicides if they're trying to take an anti-gun stance. As if Japan includes suicides in "rope violence" or something. I personally have the view that a person should have the right to end their own life if they want to. Permitting they do so in a way that doesn't directly harm another. (Like say, turning into oncoming traffic, or suicide by cop.) Granted, I also think that a person should be one-and-done on emergency services for ODing. Saving people who don't want to be saved and will just do it again always seemed rather silly to me. Save your resources for people who actually want/need them.

[Belsnickel]

(06-22-2017, 05:31 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Lol, as if 90% aren't gang-related. In 2015 there were ~13,000 gun homicides, in Chicago alone that year there were 424 gun homicides (it was much worse in 2016). That alone is 3.26% of the entire countries gun homicides from just ONE city. If you think the entire rest of the country will only combine for ~6.74%, then I would like some of what you're having.

424 gun homicides does not equal to 424 gang homicides by firearm.

The most recent homicide trends report from the Bureau of Justice Statistics that I have seen that digs down to the nitty gritty shows that gang violence adds up to about 10% of the number of gun homicides. That is total gang homicides, not just the ones carried out by firearm.
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf

Now, admittedly, this information is a few years old. However, from the other data available there is no reason to believe that the trend has seen a shift so dramatic as to flip the 90/10 ratio, or even come close to it. It is possible that in that time frame we could see an increase in the contribution of gang violence rise to 12-13%, but not any higher than that.

As for the rest of your post, a lot of focus there seems to be on proximate causes. That's fine, but they are nothing more than band-aid solutions that won't last. Well, the culture one is more of a root cause thing, but there is a chicken and an egg scenario there with how our society and systems treat the black community before we will see their culture change.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(06-22-2017, 05:50 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: 424 gun homicides does not equal to 424 gang homicides by firearm.

The most recent homicide trends report from the Bureau of Justice Statistics that I have seen that digs down to the nitty gritty shows that gang violence adds up to about 10% of the number of gun homicides. That is total gang homicides, not just the ones carried out by firearm.
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf

Now, admittedly, this information is a few years old. However, from the other data available there is no reason to believe that the trend has seen a shift so dramatic as to flip the 90/10 ratio, or even come close to it. It is possible that in that time frame we could see an increase in the contribution of gang violence rise to 12-13%, but not any higher than that.

As for the rest of your post, a lot of focus there seems to be on proximate causes. That's fine, but they are nothing more than band-aid solutions that won't last. Well, the culture one is more of a root cause thing, but there is a chicken and an egg scenario there with how our society and systems treat the black community before we will see their culture change.

There is no chicken and egg scenario. Stop being 7.6x your population's share of gun murders, and you'll stop being treated like the most dangerous demographic in the country.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Obviously Wikipedia needs to be taken with a grain of salt, but for the sake of this point, it has the US listed at 94th in homicide rate. Your linked article maintains that ~48% of the murders are by African American Males, who are ~6.3% of the population (table 1). That means if you removed the numbers from that group of just 6.3% of the population, the US would go from 94th on that list to 142nd. Nobody would be worried about US violence then. Canada is 158th, Finland 159th, France 162nd.

(Going back to the grain of salt, there's some countries you absolutely know aren't reporting all their crime. China at 194th, better than Italy, Germany, Greece.)

Either way, 6.3% of the country single-handedly moved us from average to violent. That's the part you need to be focusing on for a solution. That link you posted plus the chart I posted says if US African American Males were their own country, they would be roughly the 11th most violent country on the planet by murder rate.

[Belsnickel]

(06-22-2017, 06:28 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: There is no chicken and egg scenario. Stop being 7.6x your population's share of gun murders, and you'll stop being treated like the most dangerous demographic in the country.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Obviously Wikipedia needs to be taken with a grain of salt, but for the sake of this point, it has the US listed at 94th in homicide rate. Your linked article maintains that ~48% of the murders are by African American Males, who are ~6.3% of the population (table 1). That means if you removed the numbers from that group of just 6.3% of the population, the US would go from 94th on that list to 142nd. Nobody would be worried about US violence then. Canada is 158th, Finland 159th, France 162nd.

(Going back to the grain of salt, there's some countries you absolutely know aren't reporting all their crime. China at 194th, better than Italy, Germany, Greece.)

Either way, 6.3% of the country single-handedly moved us from average to violent. That's the part you need to be focusing on for a solution. That link you posted plus the chart I posted says if US African American Males were their own country, they would be roughly the 11th most violent country on the planet by murder rate.

You're still ignoring the fact that their culture is the result of centuries of oppression that, while lessened, still exists to this day. As I mentioned in my first post, socioeconomic issues have been theorized as being a factor in gun violence. The black community is disproportionately impoverished as well, so is there something there?

This is where the need for research comes in.

[SunsetBengal]

(06-22-2017, 08:25 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: You're still ignoring the fact that their culture is the result of centuries of oppression that, while lessened, still exists to this day. As I mentioned in my first post, socioeconomic issues have been theorized as being a factor in gun violence. The black community is disproportionately impoverished as well, so is there something there?

This is where the need for research comes in.

Are you really going to take the angle of "they are oppressed"?  C'mon man, the laws and policies in today's society give Black Men more preference in opportunity than most Whites.  The truth is that they choose to live the street life, hanging on to that "oppressed" moniker.  For example, my wife was a public school teacher, in predominately Black schools for 12 years.  She can attest to the times she heard a mother tell her "Why does my child need to learn this stuff?  He/She is going to make their living on the street.".  It's no wonder that she made the decision to take her skills to Child Protective Services, as now she is actually making bad parents accountable for their actions.

Back to my point, if those gang members wanted to be part of society, they could.  There are measures in place to guarantee their opportunity to gain education, land jobs, be productive citizens.  As ugly as it sounds, living on the street, making money from crime is just easier than working hard to be successful.

[Belsnickel]

(06-22-2017, 09:27 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Are you really going to take the angle of "they are oppressed"?  C'mon man, the laws and policies in today's society give Black Men more preference in opportunity than most Whites.  The truth is that they choose to live the street life, hanging on to that "oppressed" moniker.  For example, my wife was a public school teacher, in predominately Black schools for 12 years.  She can attest to the times she heard a mother tell her "Why does my child need to learn this stuff?  He/She is going to make their living on the street.".  It's no wonder that she made the decision to take her skills to Child Protective Services, as now she is actually making bad parents accountable for their actions.

Back to my point, if those gang members wanted to be part of society, they could.  There are measures in place to guarantee their opportunity to gain education, land jobs, be productive citizens.  As ugly as it sounds, living on the street, making money from crime is just easier than working hard to be successful.

The anecdotal evidence you provide does nothing to discount the actual research and empirical evidence that has shown the black community still faces systemic hurdles in their progress and that it I see not just their community's choice to act in this manner.

[SunsetBengal]

(06-22-2017, 10:00 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The anecdotal evidence you provide does nothing to discount the actual research and empirical evidence that has shown the black community still faces systemic hurdles in their progress and that it I see not just their community's choice to act in this manner.

C'mon man, don't go all fredtoast on me here... 

But seriously, I could put my wife on here, and let her explain it much better.. Just because evidence is from life experience, does not make it any less valid. It's not like the underside of life is going to tell the absolute truth to any nerds gathering information, in the first place...

[Belsnickel]

(06-22-2017, 10:08 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: C'mon man, don't go all fredtoast on me here... 

But seriously, I could put my wife on here, and let her explain it much better.. Just because evidence is from life experience, does not make it any less valid. It's not like the underside of life is going to tell the absolute truth to any nerds gathering information, in the first place...

Anecdotal evidence doesn't have the weight of empirical. It's not that I discount it outright, but it isn't as reliable. Even the social sciences rely on the scientific method.

[SunsetBengal]

(06-22-2017, 11:03 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Anecdotal evidence doesn't have the weight of empirical. It's not that I discount it outright, but it isn't as reliable. Even the social sciences rely on the scientific method.

Look, I understand and completely respect where you are coming from with that statement.  However, this might be one of those situations where clinical and practical just don't see eye to eye.

[GMDino]

(06-22-2017, 11:03 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Anecdotal evidence doesn't have the weight of empirical. It's not that I discount it outright, but it isn't as reliable. Even the social sciences rely on the scientific method.

(06-22-2017, 11:14 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Look, I understand and completely respect where you are coming from with that statement.  However, this might be one of those situations where clinical and practical just don't see eye to eye.

SB has a point Matt.  I know a guy who smoked all his life and never got cancer so what does all that science prove?  

And I knew a guy who knew a guy that saw a documentary about gangs...so I can't take the word of anyone doing actual research.  

[SunsetBengal]

(06-22-2017, 11:20 PM)GMDino Wrote: SB has a point Matt.  I know a guy who smoked all his life and never got cancer so what does all that science prove?  

And I knew a guy who knew a guy that saw a documentary about gangs...so I can't take the word of anyone doing actual research.  

You should pray the rosary tonight, in hopes that I don't haunt you in your dreams..

[Dill]

(06-22-2017, 06:28 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: There is no chicken and egg scenario. Stop being 7.6x your population's share of gun murders, and you'll stop being treated like the most dangerous demographic in the country.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Obviously Wikipedia needs to be taken with a grain of salt, but for the sake of this point, it has the US listed at 94th in homicide rate. Your linked article maintains that ~48% of the murders are by African American Males, who are ~6.3% of the population (table 1). That means if you removed the numbers from that group of just 6.3% of the population, the US would go from 94th on that list to 142nd. Nobody would be worried about US violence then. Canada is 158th, Finland 159th, France 162nd.

(Going back to the grain of salt, there's some countries you absolutely know aren't reporting all their crime. China at 194th, better than Italy, Germany, Greece.)

Either way, 6.3% of the country single-handedly moved us from average to violent. That's the part you need to be focusing on for a solution. That link you posted plus the chart I posted says if US African American Males were their own country, they would be roughly the 11th most violent country on the planet by murder rate.

I see some problems here, Leonard.

My first question would be who is responsible for the other 52 % of homicides. If you removed that group, the US would drop lower than 94th, wouldn't it?  

Also, I know many black men, none of whom carry guns or belong to gangs. What share of the country's gun murders are they responsible for? They aren't part of the nation's gun violence, but some still treat them as part of the most dangerous demographic in the country.

How do you "know" that China is not reporting all their crime?

[Dill]

(06-22-2017, 09:27 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Are you really going to take the angle of "they are oppressed"?  C'mon man, the laws and policies in today's society give Black Men more preference in opportunity than most Whites.  The truth is that they choose to live the street life, hanging on to that "oppressed" moniker.  For example, my wife was a public school teacher, in predominately Black schools for 12 years.  She can attest to the times she heard a mother tell her "Why does my child need to learn this stuff?  He/She is going to make their living on the street.".  It's no wonder that she made the decision to take her skills to Child Protective Services, as now she is actually making bad parents accountable for their actions.

Back to my point, if those gang members wanted to be part of society, they could.  There are measures in place to guarantee their opportunity to gain education, land jobs, be productive citizens.  As ugly as it sounds, living on the street, making money from crime is just easier than working hard to be successful.

I doubt very much that living on the street is just easier than working to be successful.

In contrast to Bels, I am going to accept your Wife's anecdote about the mother who does not value education. Likely that mother's mother did not value it either. So a child growing up in that environment will make choices that replicate her role model's. That is how people "choose" the street life. Neighborhood and parents have a great deal to do with how a child turns out. Further, there is a strong correlation between literacy and incarceration which holds for people of all races. If black Americans are disproportionately in neighborhoods with bad schools, that alone could increase the incarceration rate.

I don't think "laws and policies" today give black men more preference. Some policies have been enacted to level the playing field after decades of slavery and segregation. But they don't prevent police from negatively profiling black pedestrians and motorists, nor do they prevent judges from sentencing them differently or prosecutors from excluding blacks from jury duty.

That leads to another issue. The high incarceration rates of blacks increases the population of blacks who cannot be hired for most jobs when they get out of prison.  That is in no one's interest.

"White culture" tends to be Calvinistic. It doesn't look for social/environmental causes of social problems. It views social problems as the result of bad individual choices.  Looking for data and considering history and class situation to understand causes is just making excuses.
Everyone can think of examples of like Ben Carson, who grew up in government housing living on food stamps and attending public school but managed to make it "without any help from government." A few such anecdotes kill rather than raise curiosity about the millions who don't "make it."

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(06-22-2017, 08:25 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: You're still ignoring the fact that their culture is the result of centuries of oppression that, while lessened, still exists to this day. As I mentioned in my first post, socioeconomic issues have been theorized as being a factor in gun violence. The black community is disproportionately impoverished as well, so is there something there?

This is where the need for research comes in.

And this is exactly why they have stifled attempts for gun violence research. You already have all the data you could possibly need to draw a conclusion. It's just that you choose to ignore the obvious conclusion in favor of making excuses for people's choices. Oh it can't be their fault, they're not responsible for choosing to murder people. It's society's fault. Then the gun violence "research" will do what it always has done... ignore the real problems, and attempt to just restrict the law abiding portion of the population who own a gun legally and don't commit crimes.

You're not actually wanting real research, because you've already determined the answer isn't the answer.

(06-23-2017, 01:41 AM)Dill Wrote: My first question would be who is responsible for the other 52 % of homicides. If you removed that group, the US would drop lower than 94th, wouldn't it?  

Also, I know many black men, none of whom carry guns or belong to gangs. What share of the country's gun murders are they responsible for? They aren't part of the nation's gun violence, but some still treat them as part of the most dangerous demographic in the country.

Who is responsible for the other 52%? The other 93.7% of the population...
93.7% of the population = 52% of homicides
6.3% of the population = 48% of the homicides

 I thought we were laughing at people who provided anecdotal evidence in this thread? I never said all black men were gang members who carried guns, because obviously they are not. I just said if you're truly looking to curb gun violence in the country, you don't need to do any further studies. You just need to focus on that relatively small, disproportionately violent, section of the population.

(06-23-2017, 02:17 AM)Dill Wrote: That leads to another issue. The high incarceration rates of blacks increases the population of blacks who cannot be hired for most jobs when they get out of prison.  That is in no one's interest.

"Whit culture" tends to be Calvinistic. It doesn't look for social/environmental causes of social problems. It views social problems as the result of bad individual choices.  Looking for data and considering history and class situation to understand causes is just making excuses.
Everyone can think of examples of like Ben Carson, who grew up in government housing living on food stamps and attending public school but managed to make it without any help from government.  A few such anecdotes kill rather than raise curiosity about the millions who don't "make it."

Incarcerated for committing crimes. What's your alternative? Give all law breakers a pass, regardless of what they have done, so long as they pledge to get a job instead?

I don't think that's "white culture". I think that's "adult culture", where you're responsible for your own life choices and actions. That line of thinking is how we've gotten to the point that people try to label drug addiction as a "disease"... as if it's cancer or something.