An open letter to my constituents about my views on the Second Amendment, as published in the Ramona Sentinel:
Dear Ramona Sentinel Readers:
In recent weeks several constituents have contacted my office informing me they are offended about comments I’ve made regarding the Second Amendment. This is an open letter to all of my constituents to share the background of my views on the Second Amendment.
Please know that my position on the topic of the Second Amendment and gun ownership have not been made in haste. I have done some significant study and research in the past few years — most notably since my election to the Legislature. I now have a more distinct perspective, and question why the Second Amendment is offensive to so many, when our other constitutional rights are not?
Few argue with anyone’s right to free speech, freedom of religion, or our right to due process. Nor is there much argument about our right to a jury trial, or the abolition of slavery. Why then, does the Second Amendment cause such heartburn for some?
I believe it is largely due to revisionist history of the intent of our Founders — each of whom were thoughtful and intelligent men (much more than I). They had a keen understanding for the very basic need to protect self, family and home. What’s more, they knew full well what comes with a tyrannical government. Their words make it abundantly clear they believed the individual right to own firearms was very important:
•Thomas Jefferson said, “No free man shall be debarred the use of arms.”
•Patrick Henry said, “The great object is, that every man be armed.”
•Richard Henry Lee wrote that, “to preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms.”
•Thomas Paine noted, “[A]rms … discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property.”
•Samuel Adams warned that: “The said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.”
The Constitution repeatedly refers to the “rights” of the people and to the “powers” of government. The Supreme Court has recognized that the phrase “the people,” which is used in numerous parts of the Constitution, including the Preamble, the Second, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth amendments, refers to people as individuals. In each case, rights belonging to “the people” are without question the rights of individuals.
Since my election to the Assembly, I have seen firsthand how grossly the issue of gun ownership is being politically manipulated. There is little room for reason and virtually no room for the facts in the debate.
I find it noteworthy that the number of privately owned guns in the U.S. has reached an all-time high of over 300 million, and is actually increasing by approximately 10 million per year. I am not surprised that, given this data, the firearm accident death rate has fallen to an all-time low, 0.2 per 100,000 population, down 94 percent since the high in 1904. Actually, in the past 80-plus years, the annual number of firearm accident deaths has decreased 81 percent, while our nation’s population has more than doubled and the number of firearms has grown by five times.
Many facts could actually lend some reason to the debate. For example, the National Safety Council reports that firearms are used for personal defense 2.5 million times a year — which equates to a whopping 6,850 times a day. This means that each year, firearms are used 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives, and as many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse.
Protection of our life and liberty is a multi-pronged effort, and I take great care to work closely with members of law enforcement. Those who stand between the law-abiding and the lawless have a difficult task, and my call for individuals to become informed on the topic of personal firearm ownership comes from the understanding that we can’t rely on law enforcement to be everywhere at all times.
Most solutions to our crime rate will not come from Sacramento. It might surprise you that police are not even required to protect you: in Warren v. District of Columbia (1981), the D.C. Court of Appeals ruled, “police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection . . . . [A] government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular citizen.” In Bowers v. DeVito (1982), the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled “[T]here is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen.” That said, it is up to each one of us to safeguard our home and families.
I trust that with this background, you may have a better understanding of my thoughts because my views follow much careful deliberation and study. The subject of firearms and the Second Amendment are serious and have been weighed with factual evidence as well as a deep consideration of our constitutionally protected rights.
Thanks for listening.
Brian
Comments 38
So….you do believe in the right to a jury trial?
I don’t think many people find the second amendment offensive. I think what causes is angst is the view that many have that this right above all others should be absolute.
Free Speech, Freedom of Religion and even Due Process are not absolute and many believe that there could be reasonable restrictions on the Right to Bear Arms as well.
Define “reasonable”….
Founding Father,
That is the question and I admit that I don’t have the answer. I do however believe that most people do not think that the right to bear arms is absolute and the debate they want to have is on how to define “reasonable” restrictions.
Hypocrisy, in your personal opinion, what specifically does the Second Amendment guarantee? Who can own what and how and where can they own and carry it? In what manner can they keep and bear whatever it is they can own?
I’m not looking to beat you up over nuance. I am genuinely curious. There is a lot of talk on what people can’t or shouldn’t own and carry. Let’s start on the other side.
Again, not looking to necessarily get down into the weeds, but maybe just come down from 30,000 feet a little.
Michael,
Fair question and I don’t really have a very good answer, but I would like that to be the discussion and not have it cut off by those who think the right is absolute.
Keeping the above in mind, you did ask a question, so I will try to answer:
1. I think we can limit the type of weapons that can be owned by an individual. Again, I am not an expert on the subject, but I think, for example, we can ban rocket propelled grenade launchers.
2. I think we can also ban fully automatic (not semi-automatic) weapons.
3. I think we can limit the size of magazines.
4. I think universal background checks and waiting periods are also appropriate.
Hopefully, I am now at the 10,000 foot level and I am not sure I have the expertise to get lower, but there are others who certainly could if the conversation was even allowed.
HQ,
Regarding “reasonable”, you are not alone.
I have done a great deal of writing and speaking to this issue. The core of the issue for many detractors on the 2A is around the phrase “well-regulated” and the proponents around “shall not be infringed.” It has been hijacked to mean “regulated” as to the types of arms, perhaps ammo, or licensing. “Well-regulated” is in fact referring to the discipline, uniformity, and execution of militia formations, NOT the equipment, or caliber, or gauge of a particular system. There is the “ridiculo ad hoc absurdum” argument that says, “well, then any crazed yakaloon can own any bazooka or grenade launcher.”
Of course, that is ludicrous. WRT “Shall not be infringed” the 2A isn’t about the “hunting culture” or sportsman’s rights. It is clearly about maintaining a capacity for the citizenry to defend ourselves against a tyrannical government, or the absence of a workable, viable government unable to set the conditions for stability, order, and civility. Many find that position a bit “nutter” (and believe me there are some “nutty” people exploiting that fear).
However, 20-30 years ago, we would not have envisioned “warzones” in the form of some of our former great inner-cities (Detroit, Chicago, East LA, Newark) being reduced to anarchical vestiges of once contemporary cities; or the random and perceive ubiquitousness of lone-gunman mass killings, or post-terror/natural catastrophe event chaos (Katrina).
As you may know, Chicago, DC, and other “zones” have been declared “gun-free” and yet they produce the highest gun violence and murder rates despite the road being paved with the intention of reducing the violence by the false premise of reducing the guns/access to the guns will do that.
Thanks for answering, Hypocrisy.
I listen to and read a lot of pro-gun and anti-gun types.
I find that the pro-gun types are very reasonable. They never think it is ok to sell a gun to a criminal, minor, or those with mental issues. They aren’t fighting to own unusual weapons like rocket launchers because they understand that their lack of purpose makes them unreasonable unless they are having to defend against tanks and helicopters. They don’t mind having to pass proficiency tests in order to carry or buy a firearm. They aren’t opposed to gun dealers having to run background checks on their customers before they can purchase a firearm. They want those who break gun laws prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. They want people to generally be safe when operating, handling, or carrying a firearm.
If I could ask though, what specifically do you think the Second Amendment protects? What is the minimum scenario that no law can reverse (short of repealing the Second Amendment)? A law-abiding, mentally capable, adult’s ability to own a revolver in his/her house? Carry it outside with them? Can it be a semi-auto pistol? More than that? Less?
FF,
I am really not sure whether you were arguing for or against reasonable restrictions. Should we be allowed to own a grenade launcher or not, and if not, how would I defend myself against a tyrannical government?
By the way, do you know who Fred Simon is?
I’d say that pretty much nobody believes that the right to bear arms is absolute (think: toddlers, the insane, nuclear weapons, etc.). Arguing against that position is arguing against a straw man.
Michael,
Again, I am no expert on the subject, but I do believe we were in a very different time in terms of our standing army and its capabilities as well as the difference between weapons the military had and that which the common man had.
Trying to get into the heads of our Founding Fathers, I would guess that the second amendment was written to ensure that the populace was armed in case it needed to be called into battle against a common enemy (either foreign or domestic).
Fast forward to today and the common man is not going to be carrying around military grade arms let alone helicopters or fighter jets. I therefore don’t think it is valid to say the second amendment should allow for the personal ownership of the weaponry necessary to win a battle against the U.S. military.
In direct answer to your examples, I do believe no law should preclude you from owning a revolver or a rifle, semi-automatic or not. I am not sure that you have an absolute right to carry your firearm in public and I am relatively sure that you do not have an absolute right to an automatic weapon or a 100-round magazine.
HQ,
First answer-Never heard of Fred Simon until he spoke at the endorsement meeting at the last RPSDC. A doctor, running against DeMaio and Jorgensen for the 52nd.
2nd part-I’m with Michael on this. I am NOT in favor of “no restrictions” on weapons…however, the restrictions need to be viewed not through how to prevent bad guys necessarily from attaining them (because they often are able/willing to acquire illegal weapons through nefarious means where law abiding people will not), but how can the good guys maintain the level of defense and “deterrence” to violent, criminal, or tyrannical forces.
WRT defending against a tyrannical government, it doesn’t require the ability to “topple” for example…it does afford the citizenry the ability to give said government a moment of “pause”…that the idea of simply rounding up, or herding, or restricting the people of the US from their inalienable rights is all the 2A can guarantee. That is maybe an extreme example. However, if we don’t think that can happen, ask the Japanese Nisei during the WWII when they were interned by the tens of thousands. The Russians of the 1920s, or the German Jews of the 1930s, or the Eastern Europeans behind the wall of the 1950s, or the Cuban business, intelligentsia, and gentry classes of the late 1950s probably never thought they would have their entire lives, well-being, and welfare upended or destroyed simply because each of those governments restricted personal ownership of firearms.
Most recently, during the LA riots of the mid 90s, while vast sections of the city were under fierce siege from marauding bands of looters and thugs, one section that was virtually untouched was Korea Town. Why? Because the Korean store keepers and neighborhood watch leaders all began to post men on roof tops and at strategic street choke points…all were armed with rifles and pistols, many with military style magazines…the word quickly spread, “don’t go think about looting in Korea Town.”
Michael and FF,
I don’t think that we are too far apart on this issue. I just want to have the conversation. The leadership in the House of Representatives refused to allow that.
HQ,
There is a misaligned relationship with the NRA, powerful gun manufacturers, and some Republican (and a few dems) congressmen. No debating that…and it is something that needs to be untangled from the patriotic rhetoric and “rapped in the flag” piety that often clouds the issue. The NRA is for the right like the Unions or the AARP is on the left. Powerful, influential, and often fueled by crass politics. (and thats coming from a card carrying NRA guy…)
Shocking words?
“Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom.”
Most gun people I’m familiar with seem OK with the limitations placed on where a person cannot carry a firearm (government buildings, for example). Not every limitation, but in general.
Federally, I think we are pretty much as close to reasonable as you can get. I’m sure you and I would disagree on a few things, but generally, the federal laws cover just about everything we agree on.
On the CA level, we are not anywhere near reasonable. There was an attempt to ban semi-automatic rifles this year. It passed the Assembly and the Senate. It was stopped only by the governor’s veto. This would have added to the current ban that is at best confusing to comply with. This is one of many examples of some pretty unreasonable regulations.
It’s almost as simple as a Dem vs. Repub issue in CA, but we have an “R” sheriff who is terribly restrictive with his carry policies. And Gov. Brown is a “D” who vetoed some of the proposals (he signed some too). Sen. Rod Wright is a Dem that is a much bigger supporter of the Second Amendment than Brown. But…pro-Second Amendment Dems are pretty few and far between. I am willing to bet that Assemblyman Jones has many stories about just how willing to debate Dems in Sacramento are when it comes to the unreasonable proposals.
Part of the reason the pro-gun side appears unwilling to listen is we’ve given a lot of ground and the new proposals just do not make sense. When I travel to other states and explain the restrictions in California their reaction is confusion. Because what we have in place just isn’t logical. And arguably, ineffective. I won’t bore you with details, but I would very much like to see more discussion on what the Second Amendment does protect rather than what restrictions it doesn’t protect against.
Barry, who said that? Some east county tea party nut????
Barry,
The world was a very different place 50 years ago. I no longer fear a possible Soviet invasion.
Barry,
“Let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate.”
Soviet Invasion? Right, no.
Home invasion? Roving bands of youths playing knockdown? Never happens.
Whether internal or external threats, “history shows periods of freedom are rare, and can exist only when free citizens concertedly defend their rights against all enemies.”
“Some east county tea party nut????”
That quote is attributed to a man who was a life member of the NRA, member of the American Legion and Knights of Columbus.
Had to be a tea party guy.
The (potential satirical) words posted by Barry above can come across as “nutty”. However, if you are a community of ranchers living on the borders of Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, and Eastern CA, as the Cartels are operating with impunity with heavy weapons, militarized vehicles, encrypted communications, out-arming and violently intimidating both municipal, and Federal law-enforcement officials, and threatening, harming, and in increasingly alarming cases, killing them, (human trafficking, massive drug smuggling, weapons trade, kidnapping, prostitution, illegal Third country nationals facilitated to enter the US illegally, perhaps terrorists) then that statement doesn’t appear so “nutty.”
Michael; the description of the “East County Tea Party nut-bag” plays right into the narrative Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Chuck Schumer used to vilify, demonize, and marginalize millions of Americans that are not “nut bags” when they expressed their inalienable right to dissent against their government, which led to the 2010 revolution that brought the Republican Party to its highest point in decades and led to the re-taking of the House……and you wonder why people feel marginalized, and then decide, Perhaps the RPSDC and the Republican Party no longer speaks or represents me…
FF,
Lighten up, Francis!
I am an east county tea party nut. Gun nut, no less. In fact I gave a speech in front of hundreds at a tea party in east county that was about the Second Amendment.
Most don’t associate JFK with tea parties. Hence the humor.
And you added “bag”. I didn’t say “bag”.
Hypocrisy, I agree with you that the purpose of the Second Amendment had to do with the ability of civilians to fight off invasion. In order to do that, civilians need to be prepared and equiped properly. Which, today is a semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine that holds 30 rounds. Specifically, an AR rifle. Which is exactly the same as 50 years ago.
However, if a change is needed because we live in different times:
Article V “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.”
Molon Labe
Michael,
There is no need to amend the Constitution as none of the proposed or previous restrictions have been found to be unconstitutional. All that is necessary is to elect different federal legislators which is the same thing you need to do on the state level if you do not like the restrictions that have been passed in California.
This is why I was asking you what specifically the Second Amendment protects. Because if we agree that it’s general purpose is to make sure civilians are prepared enough to act as a defense against invasion, but its existence can’t stop legislators from banning exactly what is needed for civilians to act as a defense against invaders…what’s its point? What is the very minimum it protects?
In all fairness, you specified that you did not want semi-autos banned and we do agree on the Second Amendment’s purpose. So I’m not putting words in your mouth. Just discussing.
And asking that maybe you could talk to Hueso, Gonzales, Marty Block, and really the entire San Diego Democratic contingency about your disdain for unreasonable gun laws. I’d be happy to help. I’m not being cute either. I’m being sincere. You have their ear. The state’s laws are way out of the realm of reasonable. Help stop making honest people into felons because of laws that are unreasonably hard to follow. Help law-abiding, trained people who want to protect their life and their family have an avenue to do that.
The discussion you talk about…let’s make it happen.
Michael…caffeine much? lol…Ok…I regret not having picked up the (oh so) subtle satire in your earlier comment…(fangs retracted)…
I tip the hat from one gun “nut” to another…
“Touch any of my stuff, and I’ll kill ya'” 🙂
Michael,
I am curious, what, besides the fact that my political leanings are not in line with most of the posters here, makes you think I have the ear of our Democratic elected officials?
As for my opinion on the Framers’ intent for the second amendment, I think it is obvious from the wording that they were concerned about having an armed population ready to fend off invasion. However, what you or I think matters little; it is what five of nine men and women in black robes thinks that matters.
In addition, I am also not sure that the world in 1776 is analogous to the one we face today (I did try to say that in my comment above) and therefore, I am not sure we should still use “fend off invasion” as the standard:
1. In 1787, the standing army was in no way prepared to repel an invading force without added recruits from the general populace. Today, I do believe our military is more than capable of turning back any enemy force without me having to get my gun and join the fight.
2. In 1787, the common man probably carried weapons similar to those used in war. Today, it is hard to imagine a person with a semi-automatic rifle having much success defending his home against a helicopter with a hell-fire missile.
Still, I am intrigued by your proposal. Even if it turns out to be simply an educational exercise, it is the exercise I asked for so let’s see if at least we can agree on what is reasonable.
I will start by saying that no particular make or model of gun needs to be banned nor should any gun simply because it is semi-automatic, I also don’t believe there should be a limit on the number of guns owned or the quantity of ammunition purchased.
What restriction s are you willing to codify into law? Are you willing to ban fully automatic weapons, limit the size of magazines or ban bullets that pierce Kevlar vests or explode on contact? are you willing to require background checks and waiting periods for all gun sales including private transactions?
Guns are more than sufficiently regulated in California. We’ve got all the laws anti-gun politicians usually ask for: assault weapons ban, magazine limitation, waiting period, universal background checks, and safe storage laws. We’ve even got serious sentence enhancements for gun use in crimes. So, California needs no new gun laws or regulations.
Instead, Sacramento politicians should carefully watch how their recent dramatic sentencing revisions affect the crime rate and be ready to reverse some of the revisions. Sacramento should also consider passing the Sandy Hook Reporting Law proposed by the Pozner Family survivors. And more counties need to fully implement Laura’s Law.
Hypocrisy,
I’m going to answer in two posts because I am interested in having the discussion you asked for.
But first let me address some of your comments.
I know who you are so that’s how I know you have their ear. We should go have lunch some time.
Next, a standing army in the late 1700’s wasn’t what we think of as a standing army today because there was no posse comitatus. Posse comitatus is an often overlooked huge accomplishment of the United States. It’s frankly, one of the many aspects of our government that makes us better than other countries.
The entire continental army was made of civilians. Just farmers with guns. Regarding their personal arms, the difference between a musket and a colonist’s hunting rifle was big. A musket had a smooth bore and was made to be effective 20 or 30 yards. (Think about how soldiers lined up facing each other and just shot.) They didn’t even aim much.
The rifle a colonist used had a rifled barrel and could easily make shots out past 100 yards because that’s where game is.
In many ways, their civilian firearms were far more deadly depending on the situation. Almost like comparing a sniper rifle to a riot shotgun.
However, the colonists weren’t just fighting against other men with firearms. They were fighting against ships, cannon (off all sizes), mortar, grenades, etc. You are right that it would be silly to imagine someone today with a rifle defending against a helo with a Hellfire missile. But that isn’t an expectation or common event. Just like the Second Amendment wasn’t written to ensure each citizen had a cannon to protect against the British navy.
However, the concept of a natural right to self-defense has always meant that you do have a right to use whatever is needed to defend your life. Just like the colonists stole cannons to use against the British and just like the U.S. congress authorized surface to air missiles for Afghan civilians who were being attacked by Russian helicopters in the 80s.
“Reasonable” comes into consideration because nobody needs a bazooka to kill a burglar. That’s not reasonable and that’s not what we’re asking for. A pistol or shotgun is reasonable to defend against crime. A semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine that holds 30 rounds (the world’s most commonly owned firearm) is reasonable.
If the Second Amendment was written to protect what you and I believe it was written to protect…banning firearms commonly owned and used by military/law enforcement is unconstitutional. And Scalia’s decision in Heller vs. D.C. indicates as much. Though California’s “assault weapon” ban has not yet been tested.
Second part…..
Part 2…
First, I am talking about California. I am also not suggesting anything as a stand alone idea, necessarily. I am saying that if you (Hypocrisy) and I were the two negotiating and had the authority to put policies in place, in return for getting rid of the many flawed gun policies CA has in place there are some concessions that may work.
In general, I believe we need to look at the numbers and see who are breaking gun laws and how or why? then try and solve those problems. As you pointed out, banning guns due to aesthetics or caliber makes no sense.
1. Many use guns to commit suicide. This is an area where the private sector can do ten times what the public sector can do when it comes to suicide prevention. If there was a significant reduction in suicides, the statistics regarding gun deaths in the U.S. and CA would drop significantly. I’d codify programs to help with suicide prevention and target high risk jobs, etc. If the agenda is saving life and preventing gun deaths rather than a political agenda, this is a no-brainer.
2. More freedoms taken away from criminals. It is rare a criminal with a gun is on his first day of his criminal career. Convicted violent criminals, rapists, men who assault women, drunks drivers, robbers, pimps, drug dealers, child molesters…these are groups of criminals whose Second Amendment rights could be closely re-evaluated. Stiffer penalties, more prison time, more aggressive prosecution would reduce gun crime significantly.
3. Mental health. There isn’t the communication that needs to exist between mental health professionals and the background check system. (Side note, in California all firearms transfers go through a federally licensed dealer with very few exceptions.) If the background check doesn’t have the appropriate information to evaluate a person’s ability to own a firearm, it’s useless.
Your questions specifically:
1. What restriction s are you willing to codify into law? See above. Most gun owners and gun groups are willing to restrict gun ownership in a big way when it comes to convicted criminals and the mentally insane.
2. Are you willing to ban fully automatic weapons? Full automatic weapons are heavily, heavily restricted. They are as closed to being banned as it gets. They aren’t being used in crimes. People aren’t dying from it. I’d rather stay pragmatic rather than symbolic or emotional.
3. Limit the size of magazines? There is already a limit in CA on magazine capacity. Frankly, if this were the most onerous gun restriction on the books, CA wouldn’t be so bad. However, if we are betting our lives on the ability of a criminal to change a magazine, I think we’re going to lose. I would much rather concentrate on making sure that criminal is behind bars and not able to own a gun.
4. Ban bullets that pierce Kevlar vests or explode on contact? All bullets can penetrate Kevlar under the right conditions and I have never come across bullets that explode on impact. I cannot imagine this is is a problem. I’d really have to look into this.
Are you willing to require background checks and waiting periods for all gun sales including private transactions? Already the case in CA.
I’d be open to a more thorough concealed weapon permit process. More thorough background check? Mental health evaluation? MIB check? Not positive, but once a person is licensed, why would they need to be restricted much at all? They’re law abiding, mentally healthy, trained, etc. Why should that person be restricted? Shouldn’t efforts be focused on those committing crime?
Remove all the black and latino gun gun criminals and the USA gun deaths would be among the lowest in the world. No one wants to admit this is the problem and address it.
Harold,
I don’t think it is that people don’t want to “admit” it. I believe that people find no value in stating it that way. The implication is that the gun crime is being committed because they are Latino or black. This is not true so it is not actionable.
There is a disproportionate amount of crime committed by blacks and Latinos so gun crime is in there too. The cause of this has nothing to do with skin tone or heritage. So it’s really not something worth pointing out. Would you ever tell a history class that World War 2 or the Civil War was caused by whites?
The valuable information are points like:
The vast majority of gun crime happens in urban areas. Not suburban or rural areas. So understanding the geography is an actionable item.
Most gun crime happens in the commission of other crimes, most specifically related to drug crimes. That’s an actionable item.
Most gun crime is committed by people who have already committed a crime. That’s an actionable item.
Michael,
I still think you over-estimate my connections, but you do make a lot of sense and I asked for the conversation so feel free to call me We can discuss further over lunch.
If you don’t hear from me, I was wrong about who you are.
🙂
Harold,
From 2000-2010, African Americans committed 56% of the murders in which the race of the killer was known, White (non-Hispanics) committed 30% and Hispanics committed 12%. (http://projects.wsj.com/murderdata/?mg=inert-wsj)
Another interesting stat was that 85% of the murders were committed by men while only 15% were committed by women. Maybe instead of removing all the Black and Latino gun criminals, we would be better off if we just removed all the male gun criminals.
One other statistic to consider: Borrowing from the pro-gun lobby’s talking points: From 2000-2010, 99.9% of all African Americans and an even higher percentage of Hispanics did not commit any murders.
I used to be able to find good information from your blog posts.