I have a dream, that one day, Lewis Diuguid would write a column I would actually agree with.
Mr. Diuguid is a columnist who I should blindly back. He's an articulate, reasonable person who leans to the left of the political argument. I thoroughly enjoy any appearance he makes on 980's "Shanin and Parks". He isn't a crazy, insane liberal, like so many of those who have a "D" on their voter card.
(I know, I know: I should say "us", like so many of "us", but come on, I voted McCain! I even financially backed Hillary! I saw the disaster the Obama regime has been coming! You can read anything from 2008 on this site to see that ...)
But on one issue, Mr. Diuguid drives me absolutely bat sh*t crazy, and that issue is race.
So imagine my surprise, when I saw the link for his column in the Star this morning, and I gotta admit ... the headline for his article, made me nearly spit out the trademarked Diet Coke and Snickers Ice Cream bar breakfast:
"New Civil Rights Fight Should Focus on Reducing Homicides".
Dear God! Is Mr. Diuguid going to FINALLY focus his anger and rage over race where it belongs: at the tragic, and completely avoidable, plague of black-on-black crime in this nation, particularly in the urban areas of our country?
(And for those reading this who have no idea who the hell I am ... I am a 34 year old, white, male, single, living in south Kansas City, in District 6. I can see the Bannister Mall ruins every day when I take my jog / walk / run ... ok, ok, "very slow pace" around a healthy part of the neighborhood when it's decent enough out to enjoy the scenery. I have not "fled" to Johnson County. Quite the opposite -- I "fled" Johnson County. I believe in the urban core. I live here to prove it).
Well, like I said, I had a dream. Unfortunately, Mr. Diuguid being Mr. Diuguid, that dream didn't last long. About six paragraphs actually. Since I haven't done this in a while, let's break this bad boy down, Steve-style.
(Mr. Diuguid's printed words are noted in italics, my comments will be in normal font. The article without my witty, insightful commentary can be found here).
"Let's dream a little for Black History Month and imagine the civil-rights movement of the 21st century taking on gun violence.
Guns have contributed to an unforgiveable rate of black homicides.
Missouri ranked No. 1 in black homicides in the United States for the second time in four years, according to the Violence Policy Center's annual study of victims.
The Washington, D.C. based center found that the African-American homicide rate in Missouri was 39.9 per 100,000 people in 2008, the most recent year of available data. In Missouri, 287 African-Americans were killed that year.
Pennsylvania, which had led the list the last two years, dropped to second. Kansas ranked 14th with a rate of black homicides that was close to the national average".
sk: a couple things immediately stand out. First, any person reading these opening paragraphs would (I think) rationally conclude that Mr. Diuguid is going to finally address the biggest issue facing our urban core today: black on black crime. You want to know why white flight exists? You want to know why businesses are fleeing where I live (District 6, hardly the inner city, but a minority-dominated core population nonetheless)? It's because they're scared to death of getting shot by someone tweeking out on crack or heroin, looking to score their next fix. And frankly, I can't blame them. I cringe hearing the sirens nightly, even though more often than not, they're to deal with a wreck on the freeway. But still.
Secondly, if Kansas ranks 14th, and is "about the national average", that tells you that the sad crime of African-American homicide is really restricted to just a few states that skew the average. So what might not be a real risk in, say, Idaho or Montana, is a serious threat to Missouri, Kansas, and (I would guess) Illinois, Michigan, New York, the District, and most of the Deep South.
So we're six paragraphs in, and the reader has a reasonable expectation at this point -- that Mr. Diuguid is about to rationally deal with the causes of, and potential solutions to, this scourge on our society, and specifically on our city, since Kansas City's urban core is rocked nightly by violence.
Oh, a kid can dream.
"Gun rights advocates love to point to the Second Amendment of the Constitution backing unrestricted ownership and firearms use for "protection"."
sk: I should have known better. Why blame people for their behavior, when we can blame the "deranged fringe right wing" for daring to take the Second Amendment at face value? Tell me Mr. Diuguid, if I strongly support the Thirteen Amendment, does that make me an "advocate", aka "an impassioned die-hard for the cause" ... or does that make me sane? I'm curious.
I don't own a gun. I never have. I never will. I tend to believe the argument that the more guns you have in a society, the more violence you will have. Seems kind of sensical to me. But having said that ...
There's a reason why the Second Amendment exists. It's to prevent a tyrannical government, like the one we fought against in the Revolution, from ever assuming power in this country. It's also to allow common citizens the right to protect their property and protect their family. Again, seems sensical to me. Why Mr. Diuguid feels the need to use the word "advocates" to describe folks who simply take the Constitution at face value, shows incredible bias, and a blatant disregard for the governing document of this nation.
"But because the government openly sanctions individuals owning firearms, the U.S. and its taxpayers should be held accountable for the damage the weapons do to individuals and property".
sk: This, ladies and gentlemen, might be the single most mentally-challenged sentence I have ever read in my life. And I am fully aware that there are many mentally-challenged sentences I have typed on this site. Rather than blame the perpetrator of the crime, Mr. Diuguid wants instead to punish ... the innocent bystanders. In this case, you and I. Mr. Diuguid, you should be embarrassed at that last sentence. Any credible journalist would read that last sentence, and laugh out loud, as everyone reading your article is likely to do. What kind of a nut blames the innocent bystander, and wants to PUNISH the innocent bystander? I'd say "Cracked!", but it gets better ...
"Gun owners, manufacturers, and bullet makers should be made to pay, too, having a shared liability for hospital costs of victims and funeral expenses".
sk: actually, I can buy this argument. I don't agree with it, but I can at least see it. Like forcing the tobacco companies to pay for killing their clients. Might be a strong-arm cash grab, but at least you can understand why.
"That high cost, especially for innocent victims, would do a lot to curb gun violence, add value to human life, and make living without fear a civil-rights concern".
sk: I take back what I said a little bit ago -- THIS is the most mentally-challenged sentence I have ever read. I mean, Mr. Diuguid, do you actually READ what you write? How in the hell is suing the hell out of legal businesses that make a legal product that has many rules and regulations in place to ensure they are sold only to legal-standing citizens, how does that "curb gun violence"? It doesn't sir -- and you yourself admit it in your previous sentence, when you argue for going after the gun industry to pay for hospital and final expenses costs. Furthermore sir, you want to "add value to human life"? How about we do that by making parents of these people running around killing themselves actually stop continuing the downward cycle of the urban core?
I admire Mr. Duiguid in this regard -- at least he's trying. Unfortunately, he can't tell his head from his ass at this point. If you want people to value life, sir, give them a reason to value it. Don't have a kid at sixteen. Don't settle for a life on the public dime via welfare, WIC, and food stamps. Have some pride. Raise yourself up. The next time you publish a column actually calling on the black community to better themselves, rather than continuing to exploit the "victim mentality" you and so many seem to believe in, let me know, because it'll be the first time you've done so.
"If gun violence became a pocketbook matter for taxpayers, it could reverse the hands-off attitude people historically have held involving guns".
sk: Again, how are guns the problem here? The problem is (unfortunately) young African-American gentlemen trapped in an endless cycle of poverty and violence who simply act on how they're taught to act, be it by their parents, their peers, or society at large. Jesus, Lewis, how hard is this to recognize?
"This long overdue accountability would track with court rulings on segregation. Justices in the 1954 Brown v Topeka Board of Education ruling ended legal segregation. The courts afterwards forced states such as Missouri and school districts such as Kansas City to pay to repair the damage caused by years of government-backed discrimination and segregation".
sk: Lewis! Come on! Not even you buy this bullsh*t at this point! Segregation required a financial remedy because the GOVERNMENT discriminated against it's citizens in direct violation of the Constitution. Tossing money at young people who don't give a crap about life, and take out their lack of incentive and motivation on others, is COMPLETELY different! I mean, you know what? I apologize right here and now for ever questioning conservatism. I sincerely apologize. I now see where unchecked liberal ideology leads. It leads to Lewis Duiguid and his idiotic, completely unworkable "solutions" to a problem whose root cause he refuses to acknowledge.
"Government payment for the gun damage it sanctions would help homicide victim's families and curb the accellerating pace of gun ownership".
sk: Prove it. Show me a single government program, institution, or department that has ever solved anything by tossing money at the problem. Just one. Just one Lewis. Just one.
Furthermore, you insult every reader's intelligence by insinuating that gun ownership is as awful an evil as discrimination. You spit on the governing document of this nation by flat out saying that the government enforcing the law causes murder, causes crime, causes chaos in the urban core. How insane that THIS is what the Kansas City Star employs as it's "opinion voice". How utterly insane.
No wonder the Star and the print media are hemorraging readers. If I wasn't dedicated to seeing this through to the end, I'd pull the plug as well.
Lewis, look around you. You are seeing the results of 50 years of unchecked liberal ideology. Our schools are in ruins. Our urban core is in ruins. People are shooting each other over no reason whatsoever, or because they need to rob someone to get their next fix. Our kids are having kids. Our economy is bankrupt. You REALLY believe the solution is to throw MORE money at the problems? Haven't 50 years of results taught you ANYTHING?
"The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence reports that there are more than 283 million guns in U.S. civilian hands. The center said 33 percent of U.S. households had a gun in 2009.
Guns annually kill more than 30,000 people and injure even more Americans. A disproportionate number are African-Americans.
Of the Americans who die in gun violence, many are suicide victims. Accidental shootings claim more lives and cause more injuries".
sk: I like the slight of hand here, Mr. Duiguid. You lead with the shocking statistic -- 283 million guns in our society! You follow with an awful, what should be jaw-dropping statistic -- 30,000 people dead each year! Many more injured! ... and then admit, well, "many" of those 30,000 are acts of self-violence. And even more are "accidental" shootings.
But I do want to be fair here -- whatever my issues with Mr. Duiguid's position, at the end of the day, we share the same core belief -- black on black crime is DESTROYING America's urban populations. So let's play a little exercise here.
Taking Mr. Duiguid's statistics and words at face value, I am going to make the following three suppositions:
1. 1 in every 10 deaths by gunshot, is via suicide. That would leave 27,000 homicides by gunshot each year.
2. I will say 1 in every 4 gunshot victims due to violent crime, is injured by not killed. That puts that figure at 120,000 (30,000 x 4). However, again, you have to account for accidental shootings, as Mr. Duiguid notes. Again, I will use the 1 in 10 statistic I used for suicides, to reduce the 120,000 by 12,000 to 108,000.
3. That leaves us with 135,000 violent acts committed by guns in the United States every year. A horrific statistic to be sure.
But again, look at the facts, ignore the fancy glowing numbers. 135,000 violent acts ... out of 283,000,000 plus guns owned by the public at large. (Using Mr. Duiguid's own reported figure of gun ownership). 135,000 out of 283,000,000. Meaning .04% of every gun owned by a citizen in America, is involved in a violent crime in any given year.
.04%.
Meaning 99.96% of all guns in this nation are owned by law-abiding citizens, who use them in law-abiding ways. Meaning Mr. Duiguid wants the 99.96% who use their firearms properly, as well as the 67% of the population (approximately 200,000,000) who do not own firearms and have no desire to do so (such as myself), he wants US to pay for the criminal malfeasance of .04% of gun owners.
(And I should probably stress -- that .04% figure is GUNS, not gun owners. Odds are, if you use a gun to commit a violent act once, you're highly likely to do it again. And again. And so the cycle continues, unabaded ...)
"The $100 billion annual cost of gun violence grows if the additional cost in lost work productivity of victims, family members, and friends is included, as well as the expense of grief counseling on jobs and in schools".
sk: I highly doubt most people committing these tragic acts in our urban core are "productive". That's the reason they resort to a life of violent crime in the first place, is the lack of opportunity to better themselves. Again, Mr. Duiguid, for once, would you please address the CORE issue, and not a symptom that isn't really a symptom anyways?
"The Brady Center notes that an estimated 41 percent of gun-related homicides and 94 percent of gun-fueled suicides would not have occurred under the same circumstances if no guns were around".
sk: wait! I call bullsh*t! "If no guns were around" ... and yet 59% of gun-related homicides, and 6% of gun-fueled suicides would STILL occur? How can that be, Mr. Duiguid? How can you still have gun-related deaths if there are no guns?
(The answer: Mr. Duiguid and the Brady Center are referring to LEGAL weapons. Because clearly, disarming the 99.96% of gunowners who legally operate and own their weapons, so that the .04% who do not can be turned loose, is going to solve the problem).
Do you see what the flaw in your logic is, Mr. Duiguid? You write it yourself for God's sake! Even banning every legal gun known to mankind STILL means (extrapolating on my earlier figures) 15,930 homicides by guns, and 1,800 suicides by guns would STILL occur! Yes, you might reduce the rate of death by half. And that's an admirable goal, truly it is.
But if you really want to reduce the homicide rate by half, why not attack the core problems? Why not offer the population in the urban centers a reason to believe that a better life can be achieved? Why not focus on education, on teaching meaningful parenting, focusing on preventing teenage pregnancy that ruins so many promising young lives?
To be fair, few people do that better than Mr. Duiguid. He is a tireless, dedicated person in the efforts to improve the quality of life in our urban core. As someone that also works to improve life in the urban core, be it through Christmas in October or Junior Achievement, both programs of which I am proud to call myself a long-time member of, I have tremendous respect for Mr. Duiguid on a personal level. The man doesn't simply talk -- he acts.
Unfortunately, he also talks at times, like with this ridiculous piece of opinion journalism today. And that's what enrages me. Of all people, Mr. Duiguid knows best of all what the true issues behind the insanely high homicide rate in our urban core is. It is a mockery to the good works he does daily, to ignore that in favor of a "let's blame the radical right and those crazy gun toters" column that, if anything, sets the work of those of us who do want an improvement to the urban core backwards fifteen steps.
"But the Second Amendment, laws and court rulings liberalizing gun ownership ensures problems with guns will continue".
sk: aw, that pesky Constitution. When will our citizens ever learn that we can do better?
"With Barack Obama as President, people are flocking to gun shows and stores to buy more firearms".
sk: I hate insinuations like this. People are doing this sir, because they are led to believe that their gun rights are about to be taken away. They aren't arming themselves because they fear Mr. Obama, or because they hate Mr. Obama, they're stocking up because they fear they won't have the opportunity to for much longer. Based on your proposals in this column today, I can't say they're wrong.
"Instead of liberalizing gun ownership, society should be held responsible and accountable for the actions of guns. A 2009 study found that gun owners are 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault".
sk: And I'm guessing a study would find that drunk drivers are 4.5 times more likely to plow into a light pole than someone who is stone sober. I mean, really? Is anyone even remotely surprised that someone who owns a gun is more likely to be shot than someone who doesn't own one? Kind of goes with the territory, doesn't it?
"Despite the risks, gun ownership will remain. But if taxpayers shoulder more of the high cost of the blood that guns and bullets spill, it would boost the civil-rights value of life without guns.
Perhaps then the country will reassess and do more to limit guns. That shift would help ensure the ultimate civil rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all in America".
sk: no, what would ensure the "ultimate civil rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all in America" is to finally take the PC blinders off and accurately deal with the root causes of black on black crime: the lack of opportunity left in the urban core due to white flight to the suburbs. Is that really so hard to acknowledge? Until cities figure out a way to replace the tax base that has fled to the suburbs, and find a way to offer the same opportunities in the urban core that are offered in the suburbs, the cycle will continue, and will only get worse. Maybe in your next column, Mr. Duiguid, you could acknowledge that fact, rather than blame gun owners for what plagues African-American society.
No comments:
Post a Comment