What Criminals With Guns?
By Marc MacYoung. July 29th, 2017
Article Source
Ask yourself: What is the one element that is present in the supermajority of shootings by another person?
Not talking suicide by gun. (Which typically are three times more common than gun homicides and usually make up just over half of all suicides.*) I’m talking about being killed or wounded by a firearm in the hands of another person. (Or hell, even shot at.)
Before I go on, let me point something out. Something that has a major influence on why there’s an elephant in the room. An elephant that not only the Government isn’t talking about, the cops know it, but don’t make official statements or talk about it in court, and gun control advocates are mum about it too. It’s called a “bill of attainder.” The US Constitution prohibits them as do the constitutions of all 50 states.
So what is a bill of, writ of, act of attainder? From the dictionary: Under English common law, the state of having lost one's legal and civil personhood, as through losing the legal capacity to own or pass on property. In plain English it’s when you’re condemned by the state as a criminal (or traitor) without trial or specific charge. You’re -- literally -- declared an outlaw. Not in the romantic bad ass sense of the word, but meaning you’re outside the protection of the law. Civil rights? You don’t have any. Protection by the law? Nope. Sure they can shoot you down like a rabid dog on sight. But more than that they can put you in prison without trial and throw away the key. But the cashier’s check about this is anything you own can be seized by the powers that be -- again, without trial or chance to defend yourself. Taking this a step further, it’s not necessarily a specific crime, it’s just that you are... you know ... a criminal and therefore deserve all this happening to you.
“No bill of attainders allowed” doesn’t sound like a big thing, but quite frankly, you don’t want the government to have the ability to write them up. It’s been abused way too often in the past by the rich and powerful. They tell someone in the court, “this guy pissed me off” and ‘Viola!’ you’re a state certified outlaw -- and everything you own is seized.
As an individual in the US you can ONLY be charged with a specific crime. ** This nix on bill of attainders is why -- if you listen very carefully -- you’ll not hear cops, lawyers, law makers, etc, refer to someone as ‘a criminal,’ (on the record) but more commonly refer to the person as “involved in criminal activity.” While you might hear someone referred to as a career criminal that’s both dancing close to the line and still the person can only be charged for specific crimes. While ‘career criminal acknowledge the individual is making his livelihood through criminal activities it’s not branding the individual as an outlaw for just breathing. It does however, have a lot to do with sentencing. (Habitual is another common term.)
Now to the average person this sounds stupid. Because we all know there are criminals. We know the cops and courts know there are criminals. If you’ve dealt with them you know it’s not just a career, it’s a way of life and mindset. But, if you’re in the government, a cop, a psychiatrist, or associated with the legal system there’s the folks called, ‘lawyers.’ Lawyers can make a mountain out of a molehill and cause all kinds of problems if an official pronounces someone ‘a criminal’ and tries to punish them for that general condition. Now this whole the government can’t call someone a criminal may sound silly to you, but it’s kind of like political correctness. And like PC it has fangs because of the rules and lawyers.
So guess what is NOT tracked on a national level when it comes to shootings?
You got it, criminal records and behavior. It is tracked on a local level because it has a lot to do with the investigation into the shooting. Oh and by the way, no matter what you’ve heard or think: The cops can’t blow off a homicide investigation just because the guy was a criminal. Nope, death of a citizen must be investigated. They may do a sloppy, half-assed job because they know he’s a douche, but they can’t officially ignore it. It has to be investigated. This especially if it results in a body.
In case you didn’t get it, the answer to the ‘what element is present’ question is criminal behavior.
When it comes to gun deaths and shootings, crime is more important than race. It is more important than age. It is more important than income. It is more important than sex. And it definitely has a lot to do with who is pulling the trigger and why. That’s why it’s ‘absence’ in official numbers is a serious “Hold the phone.” As in how the hell can you have a rational conversation about guns without it?
The answer is you can’t.
Which is more suggestive of an agenda than actually looking at the subject of guns, shootings and deaths. The bottomline is in the US we have a professional, armed criminal class who shoot each other with distressing regularity. They in fact, make up a supermajority of (nonsuicide) gunshot ‘victims.’
Now, while I say, “When it comes to crime there are no statistics that are worth wiping your ass with”*** I’m going to have to use them to demonstrate a point.
It varies from year to year, city to city, but -- in places where homicides are common -- the rate of homicide victims who have criminal records typically range between 90 to 100%. Oh and guess what? The same supermajority applies to the shooters themselves. As one cop from a mid-sized city once told me, “In the 20 years I have been on the force, we’ve never had a homicide where the victim was not known to the police.” So yeah, crime and shootings, big connection.
BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN?!?!?!
~sigh~
Let’s talk about some ugly realities here. First, you keep on using that word. What do you mean by ‘children?’ Do you mean anybody under the age of eighteen? Because where I’m from we call anyone past the age of 12 a “teen.” The ten years between two and twelve “children.” And under two babies, infants or toddlers. The term children typically implies that two to twelve period. (Although legal standards usually go to 14 and anyone above that is a minor.) Under twelve, however are not the majority of people under eighteen being shot.
In fact, according to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report the by age break down of all homicides of minors in 2015 :
Infant, 182
1-4, 328
5-8, 75
9-12, 78
13-16, 456
17-19, 1,349
Additionally (and for comparison)
20-24, 2,834
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u....
Now that’s homicides by all means, not just guns. (While very few infants/toddlers are shot, most are killed by abuse and neglect.) Notice the rise in numbers starting with the teens.
Once again we are facing something that is deliberately not tracked on a national level. That is gang affiliation.
Funny but the people who are shooting gansta-teens the most are other gangmembers and drug dealers. Are they teenagers themselves? Often, but not always. Gang membership is tracked locally for investigative purposes, but deliberately ignored in the gun control debate -- especially when it comes to firearm related deaths of ‘children.’ Even though many are minors, calling a violent gangmember a ‘child’ creates cognitive dissonance with most people. Also sympathy drops like a paralyzed buzzard. Which is probably why it’s so seldom mentioned.
But let’s talk about gang affiliation. Not just membership mind you. Gangmembers make up a majority of teens who are shot and killed. But also on that list are people who are related to and -- often-- in physical proximity to a gang member (who is the actual target). This especially means other minors. Oh and do you want to know the fastest way for a teengage girl to get shot? Try screwing or partying with a gangmember. It’s all fun and games until the other side shows up and bullets start flying.
When you talk about this, the common anti-gun/ gun control advocate will try to zig and start talking about five and six year olds who are shot. After all Those children couldn’t be in a gang at that age. Nor are they willingly affiliating with them.
Well, this will make you want to scream. First yes, a four year old isn’t likely to be a gang member, but that child is often in proximity with his/her Baby Daddy -- who IS in a gang. Oh and IS the target. The same goes for younger siblings of gang members. Turns out other gangs aren’t really concerned about who gets caught in the crossfire.
Then comes the real disgusting element of how many gangs and criminal organization use children -- actual 7, 8, 9 and 10 year old children -- as part of their criminal enterprises. Talk to older gangmembers and try to find some who didn’t grow up as a hanger on or being used as mules and look outs. And yes, if a drive by shooting or assassination happens there’s a good chance these children will be caught in the cross fire between warring criminal groups.
Even legitimately innocent children are swept up in criminal gun violence. Not as many as gangmember minors, but innocent children. Wanna try and take them away? Oh great, now we’re involving child protective services, family court and parental rights if you try. Welcome to a whole new can of worms.
Now I want to address how a small percentage of children are deliberately killed by firearms. That is in mass shootings, commonly in the form of familial murder/suicide. This isn’t ‘crime related’ nearly as much as it’s a family member going off the deep end. Usually the father who kills his family then himself. But often enough not to be uncommon it’s a sibling who also kills parents. (I should say I was once woken up by the sound of gunfire as a father -- who’d killed his two children -- committed suicide by cop by opening up on the local police station. I also have a friend who survived a familial murder/suicide incident so I’m not talking in the abstract about this.) I’m going to redirect your attention to 2015 homicide numbers by age. Then I will point out that of the tens of thousands of gun deaths these are -- if not under 100 -- in the low hundred plus. It happens and it is a horrible tragedy.
Whereas criminal activity ranks in the 100s of thousands when it comes to homicides and shootings. This especially when we factor in robberies using firearms. One source put the 2015 firearm robberies at 123,358
https://www.statista.com/statistics...
(Look at the *** footnote. Odds are those numbers are extremely low. You also have to factor in the numbers of ‘shots fired’ reports when the police showed everyone was gone because nobody got hit.)
Oh and BTW, a University of Chicago/Duke study found criminals are armed because they fear each other more than the police. It also found that most firearms in the hands of criminals are acquired by illegal means (i.e. criminal networks)
https://d3uwh8jpzww49g.cloudfront.net/...
So yeah in case you missed it: In the US we have a professional criminal class. Criminals who are both heavily armed and who have a bad habit of shooting each other.” And they aren't too persnickity about 'civilian casualties.'
Now while the average citizen might return the lack of concern and say, “Good, let them kill each other” that isn’t how the government works. Nor should you want a government that takes that line.
However, something that does concern Joe and Jane Civilian is when criminals stop shooting each other and aim their guns at ... well, Joe and Jane. This is of particular import to people who work behind the counter of establishments likely to be robbed. In other words, civilians tend to get cranky about criminals pointing guns at them.
Which face it, it happens -- especially in high crime areas.
Now what you may not know is that high crime areas are not exclusive to poor neighborhoods. Nope. Have you ever heard the term “Robbery Corridor?” It’s the 1/2 to a mile ‘corridor’ on either side of a freeway and nearby on/off ramps. Businesses located here-- especially cash heavy -- are more likely to be robbed than businesses farther away from the freeways. Why? Simple, easier escapes. Jump on the freeway and you’re gone.
There are various ‘crime tracker’ sights. You’ll also see personal robberies go way up in popular social/night time locations with multiple exit routes. In other words you’re more likely to be mugged while out for a dinner and movie than you are stopping off to pick up your dry cleaning after work. The fact is, very few people who are not involved in criminal lifestyles are ever going to get shot, get shot at, or -- as there is a HUGE amount of unreported robberies and rip offs in the criminal world -- get robbed by a criminal.
Fact of the matter is, you -- whether you know it or not -- probably travel in and out of high crime areas every day. Now your lifestyle choices have a lot to do with your chances of running into a criminal. High crime areas are often safe to go into during the day, but not so much at night. For example in Denver, one of the higher crime areas is downtown. Where during the day, it’s business. At night it’s leisure and entertainment... and robberies and theft.
You’ve got a good chance of being the victim of a violent crime if you live in a city. This is especially the if you use the same ‘accounting’ as the alarmist agenda people and include over your entire lifetime. (Although for bragging rights I do have to admit it’s been over 20 years since I was last shot at -- I’ve never gone so long in my entire life.)
Also, if you live long enough there’s a good chance of being on the ground when something bad happens. (Another example, I spent the LA Riots in 92 sitting on my porch, reading, smoking my pipe with a shotgun next to me as the riots came within two miles of my house.) Seeing mobs run up and down the streets burning and looting forever answered the question of ‘why would anyone need a high capacity magazine?’ I saw the rioters turned back on live TV. Oh and in case you’re wondering, 2000-2010 was the first decade of my life when I wasn’t caught in a riot or just down the road for one. I’m going for two consecutive decades in 2020. It makes up for the multiples I dealt with in the ‘90s. What can I say? Fun times...not.
So let’s get real.
When people argue for gun control, don’t let them distract you from the issue of crime. But especially don’t let them get away with using statistics that ignore criminal activity. Because while politicians, academics and gun control proponents can ignore the connection of gun violence and criminals, you can’t.
But now you can point out that yes, there’s a deliberate attempt to ignore the fact that criminals have guns. Your right to self-defense and gun ownership is strongly tied to this fact.
--------------------------------------------
*Although interestingly enough, while there are commonly three million plus suicide attempt in the US, attempted suicide by firearm typically only number in the low hundreds. Yes you read that right, firearms are --technically speaking-- the leading means of suicide, but are statistically meaningless in suicide attempts. Drug and booze overdosing is the second most common means of suicide, but --again talking supermajority -- the most common attempted suicide method. (Source CDC)
** The work around that is RICO, but that is you being part of an organization that is deemed criminal and arising from specific charges.
*** Yes, it’s a big statement. Let’s start with ANY solid number that is given as ‘proof’ is incorrect. I don’t care who it’s from. Issue number one - If it’s from ‘official sources’ (FBI, BJS, CDC) it is based on REPORTED crimes. A lot of shit goes down that isn’t reported. Issue number two - What are the definitions/standards used? Really, really important. For example the FBI defines mass shootings as four or more people killed excluding the shooter. (Understandable, given murder/suicides and rampage shootings.) Whereas other organizations include both wounded and the shooter in their definition of ‘mass shootings.’ So how many mass shootings happened in a particular year? It depends on the definition. Issue #3 -- Are the numbers being provided accurate? Seriously, we’re talking business and politics having a vested interest in not accurately reporting how much crime is happening. Issue #4 -- Remember lies, damned lies and statistics? (Go read “How to Lie with Statistics” by Daryl Huff.) I’ll give you a hint. An area with zero homicides for 10 years will demonstrate a 100% increase for the year if someone is killed. Issue #5 -- Estimated numbers. Yeeeeeeah, some lie low, some lie high -- especially when your funding is based on the size of the crisis. Basically the idea is to take the known low numbers and make up huge numbers to warrant funding. Issue #6 -- Redefinition of crime. Basically the exact reverse of #2 with a heap of the motive for #5 included. #6 -- Yearly variance. Let’s say 10 shooting victims per year in a city. For the last two years all shooting ‘victims’ were criminals. The year before that there was a murder of a non-criminal (90%) Year before that it was 100% criminal. This year, there was a familial murder suicide where Ex lost it shot his former wife and two kids then himself. (Excluding the shooter only 70% were criminals for that year.) In tracking homicides for the last five years do you use the mean, the median or mode? The best I can do accurately convey understanding is to provide actual numbers when every possible and when using statistics say they typically range between ___ and ___ .