The fatal shooting of a 33-year-old man in Oakland has bought this year’s homicide tally to 110, tying the city’s mark last year.This is the time of year when we see reports like this. The John Lott supporters keep telling us that BECAUSE there are more guns around there is less violence. But, even the author himself knows that's not true.
Officer Rob Rosin tells the Oakland Tribune that police responding to reports of gunfire found Jose Rivera Estrada lying on a sidewalk in east Oakland Wednesday night.
He was pronounced dead at the scene. Rosin said police did not have a motive for the killing or any suspects in custody.
The incident was Oakland’s 110th homicide so far this year, the same total for all of 2011. The city also recorded the same number of homicides in 2009.
Like we reported about Baltimore the other day, Oakland doesn't seem to be benefiting like it should.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
The big issue, and intent behind Mr. Lotts argument is more legal guns, more lawfully armed law abiding citizens with guns does tend to correlate with lower crime rates. The correlation doesn't hold in Oakland because of two reasons, It is starlight gang war in Oakland, IE non law abiding individuals having guns. And it is in the Bay Area of San Francisco Ca. An area not known for ease of law abiding citizens being able to carry and obtain firearms. Using Oakland as an argument is weak and flawed at best. Mike Z
ReplyDeleteMike Z beat me to the comment here, but look back at your article on Baltimore. I told you the same thing: Lott is talking about legal owners and carriers of guns, not criminals.
ReplyDeleteBut this kind of thing isn't supposed to be possible in Oakland. It's in the Brady Bunch gold star state. Their website brags about how California has strong gun laws that keep people safe. It's also not out in the "hillbilly" or "redneck" areas that you love to disparage. How can this be?
As the others said, Oakland murders going up supports Lott's thesis. No one in Oakland has a CCW, Mike- except for Don Perata (an anti-gun politician). Apparently he is not doing a good enough job driving down crime by himself.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBwahaha! I love it. In a few short days, mike post two stories about increased crime in two cities - both of which are in states that top the Brady Camp's state scorecard for safe gun laws!
ReplyDeleteMike, are you trying to make our job easier? Yes, Lott was right! Mystery solved - your welcome.
Greg, I notice no reply from Mike or his minions.
ReplyDeleteWhat reply are you waiting for? Is it the old, "why is there so much gun violence in Chicago" bullshit?
DeleteChicago and Baltimore and Oakland are not isolated places. They are all short drives from lax-gun-law states.
Plus, my side never claimed that gun availability is the only factor. These cities are shitholes of economic and societal problems, which, combined with the easy access to guns adds up to high gun violence.
What it proves is more guns means more violence, not less.
"What it proves is more guns means more violence, not less."
DeleteNo, what it proves is that more restrictive laws will not solve the issue. Unless you would be magically successful at enacting a complete and total ban and then wait decades for attrition to weed out existing supplies. Then, and only then, might you begin to see any effect from restrictive gun laws - trampling the rights of citizens in the process.
Then, you probably would see a decline in the all too often used murky 'gun-death' category. Of course, total violent crime would likely skyrocket - as it has and is in the UK.
But as long as you allow citizens to own guns in any way, shape, or form (and you claim that you do not oppose this) - then you will never have any meaningful impact on the supply of guns to those who want them. And as long as that is the case, people will continue to get them despite your laws. That is what these stories prove.
At this point in this discussion, nothing has been proven. I suggest we come closer to an answer if we compare the incidence of gun violence in (for the purposes of this discussion) Chicago, Baltimore and Oakland with the incidence in cities in those nearby state with "lax gun laws". I contend that while the economic and societal factors at work in those places are very real and powerful, to suggest (as some do, though I'm not sure you are) that the presence of these factors is in anyway an argument for gun control, is begging the question.
ReplyDelete