urbanSTL

pat wrote:Long term you need better gun laws, and somehow teach these youth that you can't solve your emotional frustrations with violence.

I agree Pat - we need better gun laws. In this case, it is almost certain that those firing guns on the Loop most likely obtained them legally, so stricter gun laws would most definitely solve issues like this. They should change the laws to where only people without felonies could buy handguns, and you should have to be at least 21, then you wouldn't have all of those gun shops in the city selling to these 16-18 year old youths who probably have a pages-long rap sheet...oh wait...

^How will removing guns from the hands of untrained, testosterone-fueled youths not reduce crime? I think baseball bats and pipes at least are less likely to cause collateral damage from an idiot who can't really fire a gun properly.

If gun control will have no impact, then why are people in Mexico yelling at the United States about the illegal guns being sent south of the border? The ability to kill someone in the blink of an eye certainly changes the degree of violence on the street. It's what nuclear weapons did in the Cold War. Everyone has to get better and more arms in order to outdo their opponent.

If guns were removed, by this I mean highly regulated and nearly impossible for some kid to access, homicide would drop significantly as is the case in most civilized western countries. Combine that with decriminalizing or legalizing drugs and I think conditions would improve significantly in the inner city. But we will probably never see that happen in the United States -- with Obama's contradictory stance on the Drug War and the amount of money and jobs invested in the prison system.

I was on the Hampton 90 Metrobus when visiting Saint Louis last summer. Some Hoosier kid from St. Charles was talking to me about how he's wanting to sell his .38 pistol to some people in the city. He asked if I wanted it at the Forest Park Station. Then he got on the bus and was talking loudly on his phone to a customer. The gun trade is out of control. Violence will not be addressed until people do their jobs and crack down. I called the Police and I bet no one even made an effort to do something. How is this not connected to the problem?

^Mexicans are mad that the US is not controlling the flow of illegal guns to their country. Mexico, yes, has strict gun laws and the illegal trade nullifies their laws. I do not think that more guns will solve the problem in Mexico, but rather fewer in the hands of the cartels. That and legalizing drugs here rather than pretending our consumption will go down through impossible and destructive efforts at disrupting supply.

If you think gun laws that would have a quantifiable impact on gun violence are difficult, then what do you think about addressing racism? Why not look at similar societies with stricter gun laws (Canada, Australia, England...)? Why aren't they examples to follow? There's an impact by making guns harder to acquire.

ricke002 wrote: Doing that with another ethnicity/race wouldn't fly in most circles. That's the point.

Indeed.

"Making fun" of white people cannot be considered reverse racism, because they dominate and are privileged over all others. Historically and presently images of white people and whiteness in general are associated with purity and superiority. This formed the basis of our identity as a nation. The need to protect it was codified in laws which existed until Loving vs. Virginia. We still have not gotten rid of the obsession with whiteness.

Obama was seen as a clean and articulate, which means having an identity more white than African American – despite that he was a community organizer, appears quite dark, and at one point probably talked openly about racial issues. White people accept African Americans who seem like them in terms of dress, appearance, culture, actions, and finally denounce the ongoing practice of racism. That is why Obama can never talk about these topics and why policies will never be passed to address these problems.

What really bothers me is when white people hear about the problems that non-whites deal with and then say “no, that can’t be true.” To understand you have to first listen and acknowledge that you do not walk in their shoes. That is unless you emulate John Howard Griffin.

So making fun of minorities would be offensive because white people, as a group, historically and presently actually reinforce these stereotypes in actions that are painful, offensive, and discriminatory. People might say this isn't fair, but it's far better to be white in America than any other group. So be an adult and watch what you say, because words may do more damage than intended.

pat wrote: This (rowdy teens in the Loop) isn't a racist issue. Though some seem to try and make it one. There would be the same reaction of anger if there were 300 white, hispanic, asian, or other teens coming together, then getting violent, and then shooting guns.

African American males have always been positioned as the greatest threat to white people. Of course the race of the individuals shooting each other does not really matter to me in terms of a public safety concern, as guns being fired off should be addressed regardless of the person doing the shooting. Though a lot of people in this region still associate black males with violence.

They cite crime reports, ignoring what actually causes crime and casually overlook violence placed upon African American males by the state. There is nothing inherently more violent about African Americans than any other group. The problems of inner-city violence have a lot to do with generations of joblessness, educational inequity, and actions taken by the government which dismantled the African American family unit.

^I never said it was OK. I said it wasn't "reverse racism," which implies equal weight to a white person calling an African American something negative and the African American doing the same thing to a white person. I don't think they will ever be equal considering the hundreds of years through which African Americans endured oppression at the hands of whites. I listed above examples of how it still goes on today. My opinion, we don't have to agree, you can think what you want.

I of course would be offended personally if anyone called me something negative. It has never happened to my face. It did occur walking along the Iberville Projects in New Orleans to my asian girlfriend's brother (black kids doing bad karate moves, bruce lee and jackie chan comments) and I honestly didn't know how to react.

We talked about it after and apparently it has happened many times. They were really hurt, but have learned to get over it. I thought that perhaps this could be explained through economic tensions that exist between Asians and African Americans. I think that's a good explanation.

I'd agree more with Someguy.

Every person can be judge by his individual actions.

And, yet, groups of anything in this world can be judged collectively according to arbitrary forms of analysis.

With regard to life on earth, we study in detail, in science, its diversification, from the most general through more-and-more specific sub-units:

kingdom
phylum
class
order
family
genus
species
and even sub-species, for animals, but not for humans, the subject is a taboo.

The study of human sub-species is heavily vilified as 'racism', and even in a manner that would be scientifically interesting; although, under the title of 'genetics', small avenues of inquiry are permitted, and seem to be growing.

Every individual, do prove your own sanctity and your own responsibility.

leeharveyawesome wrote: Me, non-racist, with a long history in the hood sees 1000 murders in the last ten years with 950 committed by black people and says "What's up with that?".

Where did you get these numbers?

Those who say African Americans are inherently violent due to some scientific basis are making the same arguments used to justify the eugenics movement. I wonder if you cut and paste your arguments from Herbert Spencer, William Z. Ripley, or perhaps Charles Murray?

someguy wrote: If all races are equal, why was one able to so powerfully dominate another? Why does that race continue to hold most of the power in this country? The easy answer is that one race is simply superior to the other, but I don't want to believe that.

What race dominates today?

Race has nothing to do with the formation of empire nor does it explain why they fall. The British, for example, dominated the globe not through their own troops, due to their small population, but from those of the countries they colonized. Race does not explain American Empire, it did not ensure the Nazi's lasted for 1000 years, and it did not lead to the downfall of the Soviet Union. No one who studies these issues, with any credibility, would argue race has anything to do with empire.

I wonder if this forum has been invaded by the Council of Conservative Citizens?