MachIVshooter
Member
You need to understand the difference between the anti-gun crowd and the non-gun crowd. The latter are the bulk of Americans who do not have any interest in shooting, do not wish to own a gun themselves, hurt inside when they read of tragedy, but do not personally desire to take away guns. This group is the prize, they are the ones we need to sway with sound arguments rooted in logic.
The true anti-gun crowd often cite violence reduction as a reason or goal, but it is not their actual motivation. They hate guns, they hate gun owners, and they absolutely want to take them away from everyone. These people will lie & cheat, skew statistics, dance on the graves of recently deceased children-whatever it takes. For the real anti-gunner, the ends will always justify the means, and their only goal is total disarmament of lawful gun owners. Don't they give a rat's patoot about the dead, least of all the young urban black men who are most likely to fall victim to violence.
Ever notice how the daily death toll in the decrepit cities goes almost completely ignored by the antis, but the instant any "mass shooting" happens, a heart wrenching event but a statistical anomaly, they are all over it like flies on poo? That's because 20 kindergarteners slaughtered by a white lunatic who stole a family member's legal gun serves their interest far more than the thousands of young black men offing each other with illegal weapons annually.
They know full well it won't fix the problem. Once in a while they'll make that claim when addressing their voter base, but the liberals have 90% of the black vote locked down, and they know they won't sway the other 10%. Their target is white suburbia.
I'm not familiar with dailykos, but I can tell you that compiling this data will not convince them otherwise. If anything, your OP came across as bigoted.
Best thing to do is not throw racial statistics down, but to counter their beliefs with genuine, articulate arguments. Take my position, for example: Do I want guns in the hands of inner city black (or other race) youth gang members? Of course not. No one in their right mind thinks a 16 year old thug carrying a stolen handgun has a thing to do with RKBA. Do I have any problem with a black man (not kid, not thug, man) legitimately owning a gun for any lawful purpose, including self defense? Of course I don't. Quite the opposite, in fact, and while I've never known an underage gang member, I do personally know several responsible adult black males who are gun owners, and I enjoy talking weapons and shooting on the range with them just as much as anyone else.
Among the black community, moreso than white or others, firearms are used criminally with far greater frequency. As well, the percentage of black sportsmen and target shooters is far, far lower than white. This colors their perspective on gun ownership and use differently; they see the gun as something that is used almost exclusively in the killing their young black men by other young black men. It is not an easy perception to change, and you're certainly not going to do it with statistics-especially if you're white. Truthfully, the more enlightened black men who try are, more often then not, ostracized, labeled uncle toms and race traitors.
I don't have the answer, but I can tell you that this approach isn't it.
Look over the same data sets you have been, but instead of breaking it down by race, break it down by age, income level and location. You will find that people of any race who live in impoverished communities face much greater rates of crime and violence than those who do not. A 17 year old kid in Detroit, regardless of his race, has a much higher probability of being involved in fights, committing crime, being arrested, and even being killed than another 17 year old boy who lives in a middle class suburban neighborhood.
Sure, terrible crimes happen in affluent communities, too, and there are plenty of "bad apple" kids in suburbia. But when a child grows up in a house with two parents who provide him with everything he could ever need and then some, push him to excel, when he goes to a school where a teacher actually notices his absence, he has a much lower risk than the child who has had to endure living in run-down, government subsidized housing with a couple of older half-brothers and a mother on welfare, dad nowhere to be found, school a secondary concern to finding a way to keep clothes on his back and food in his mouth. Some of these kids turn to criminal activities because the pay is far better than a minimum wage job across town, others turn to the gangs because they really don't have a family of their own. The reasons are many, the results are inevitable.
Just remember that nobody is going to take you seriuosly if you cite Wikipedia as a source.
Back to the beginning here. Never, ever forget that it is the bleeding heart non-gunner who wants to see violence reduced. The anti-gunner couldn't care less. Even if the violence were to increase in the wake of a ban (which other nations have shown that is exactly what happens), they would still sit back with a poo-eating grin on their face, satisfied with themselves for having accomplished their goal..........which was never about saving lives.
