Jackson Free Press

President Obama has gotten more death threats in a shorter period of time than any other president in U.S. history. The legion of right-side talk-radio gabbers, the GOP-induced professional mobsters who commit orchestrated mayhem at health-care town halls, the birthers, the Web sites and chatrooms that crackle with anti-Obama venom, and the endless montage of race-baiting cartoons and depictions of Obama and First Lady Michelle have created a viperous climate of hate that knows no bounds.

The stock assumption is that race is the reason Obama is a bigger target than any other president. That's a huge factor. The mere sight of a black man at the helm is more than enough to drive countless loose screws, unreconstructed KKKers, Aryan Nation members, skinheads, and the rest of the whacky fringe into a froth.

But anti-black hatred is only one reason for the record number of death threats against him. Threats against presidents often come fast and furious immediately after their election. The reasons are varied; many are the chronic cranks and nut cases, others hate the views of the president, fear change, or just get a thrill from making the threat.

But the GOP strategists and their stealth talk-radio and blog allies are playing for bigger stakes than just bashing a black president. At stake is reworking the GOP to take back power. A full throttle destabilization of the Obama administration on everything from the economy to health care is the obvious attack point. The GOP and their surrogates have snatched a page from the playbook used against every Democratic presidential candidate and president by the GOP since Nixon: Create havoc through character assassination, rumor mongering, fear, intimidation and emotionally charged code words. The operative tag they've slapped on Obama is "socialist." That sets off a Pavlovian drool; reason quickly goes out the window, and the red flags run up the mental flagpoles of countless Americans.

Obama's message of hope and change feeds into rightist paranoia. He has drawn an instant global throng of admirers who see in him the embodiment of change and a fresh direction for U.S. policy on the war and the easing of global tensions. He's also seen as a potential president who can put a diverse, humane face on American foreign policy.

These are the exact qualities that stir the deep fury, hatred and resentment among a steadily growing frenetic number of malcontents and hate mongers. The thick list of fringe and hate groups as well as the hordes of unbalanced violence-prone individuals running free in America can fill a telephone book. The long history of hate violence in America is more than enough to raise the antenna on the danger of violence against prominent political figures.

The gun culture of the nation adds even more fuel and danger to the mix. Gun and ammo sales have gone through the roof since Obama's election, with many openly bragging that they are ready for a war to win back the country. Whether it's the wholesale wipeout of families, gunning down police officers or the shoot-up of a women's fitness center, the police invariably find that the cracked shooter has made some rant about guns and spouted wacky extremist views.

Obama, of course, has been the target of unbounded hate from the moment that he announced that he was a presidential candidate in February 2007. The personal death threats began flooding in to his campaign. Obama had the dubious distinction of being the earliest presidential contender to be assigned Secret Service protection on the campaign trail. As the crowds grew bigger at Obama rallies and his public visibility grew even greater, the Secret Service increased the number of agents assigned to guard him.

Obama campaign aides and volunteers continued to report occasional racial taunts and jibes when they passed out literature and pitched Obama in some areas. This further increased the jitters that Obama was at risk. As the showdown with John McCain heated up in the general election, the flood of crank, crackpot, and screwball threats that promised murder and mayhem toward Obama continued to pour in. This prompted the Secret Service to tighten security and take even more elaborate measures to insure his safety.

The troubling question, though, is how tight the Secret Service can clamp the security shield around Obama as president. The same report that there's been a 400 percent leap in death threats against Obama also noted that the Secret Service in under-agented and under-resourced. That's not very comforting. But threats come with the presidential turf, a turf that Obama stands firmly on, and for some that's just to much to stomach.

Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His weekly radio show, "The Hutchinson Report," is live-streamed nationally on http://www.ktym.com.

Previous Comments

ID

151122

Comment

A 400% leap in death threats against the President of the United States by Americans? How horrible! I take it those people are not ready for a change we can live with. That must be the entire membership of the remaining and actively participating republicans. I hear the GOP is losing members faster Judah, the original republican, betrayed Jesus.

Author

Walt

Date

2009-08-21T16:32:02-06:00

ID

151126

Comment

A 400% leap? Where'd you get that figure? So far google is only showing left-wing blogs reporting it. I'd love a link to the actual report.

Author

Ironghost

Date

2009-08-21T16:43:15-06:00

ID

151129

Comment

It's from a book, Iron: "In the President's Secret Service" by Ronald Kessler. Here a Washington Post review mentioning the quote.

Author

Ronni_Mott

Date

2009-08-21T18:22:03-06:00

ID

151130

Comment

Oh Good! I couldn't find it. I figured you guys on the liberal media mailing list had the info. :D Added: Gee, that sounds like a book I'd really trust to have accurate numbers.

Author

Ironghost

Date

2009-08-21T19:09:44-06:00

ID

151131

Comment

"Obama's message of hope and change feeds into rightist paranoia. He has drawn an instant global throng of admirers who see in him the embodiment of change and a fresh direction for U.S. policy on the war and the easing of global tensions." hahahahaha... this is hysterical! Hope and Change(tm)! 1) we are still in iraq 2) gitmo is still open 3) patriot act still in effect 4) unemployment at record levels Is this the "fresh direction?" Laughable.

Author

LawClerk

Date

2009-08-21T19:32:23-06:00

ID

151132

Comment

People stocking up on guns and ammo have nothing to do with threats on Obama or any kinda war crap. People have done it because of the anti-gun people in his admin,and his known anti-gun stance.

Author

BubbaT

Date

2009-08-21T20:09:36-06:00

ID

151133

Comment

Please, Bubba! Why do these people need all those guns and ammo anyway? What major event are they anticipating occurring that requires all that firepower? Don't they already have enough weaponry? Who and what are they planning to kill? I'll never understand why so many innocent and blameless people harbor so much fear of revenge or reprisal. If you don't think they claim complete innocence, just ask them if they have ever done anything (including voting) to harm or hold back a minority and you will get a resounding and nearly unanimous no. Why are so many saying they're ready to take the country back? Back from whom? Who ever took the country from them or us? We all know the country is flooded with scared and racist nuts who think 13% of the population will try to get revenge against the majority. They must not even be able to count. They certainly can't read because if they could they would know there isn't even 500 combined people from every minority who is interested in personal revenge. All people I'm aware of much rather have happiness, joy, peace, prosperity, unity, equality, et al. Long ago, nearly every minority person decided to leave the task of payback up to the Lord. Only one kind of man worries about revenge - the man who has harmed all of mankind to save his own. If you're innocent or guilt-free, it's illogical to expect revenge.

Author

Walt

Date

2009-08-22T14:37:01-06:00

ID

151134

Comment

You're so good for a laugh, Walt. Is it a problem if some people fully expect Obama and Co to ban all forms of guns, and move to take steps to have a supply handy? It's still legal to stock up, whether or not it makes sense for you. Personally, I don't think he'll try such a foolish stunt. He's already having problems with his Health Care "reform". I don't think he's ready to do something that would be seen to everyone but the most deluded liberal as a move towards a police state.

Author

Ironghost

Date

2009-08-22T15:00:42-06:00

ID

151135

Comment

Iron, you really crack me up! Police state? (bwahaha!) You've got to be kidding. First, instead of dissing a book you haven't even read (which gives you absolutely no credibility on the subject whatsoever, btw) why don't you try reading it before passing judgment, or is it just easier to borrow someone else's opinion than actually forming your own? The Secret Service is tasked with protecting the administration from assassination. Who else would have the numbers? The review I linked to is so obviously biased against the Secret Service it's almost a joke. Here's another that's quite different, and another. As to the issue of guns, if you think "stocking up on guns and ammo" and the right-wing nut jobs sending death threats to Obamaren't related, you're simply not paying attention. The only people who are saying Obama will overturn the Constitution and take away American's guns are the right. Obama and his administration haven't even hinted it, but the right is spinning his opinion into fear ... "He'll take away your guns!!!!! Run! Buy MORE GUNS!" Good grief. The people who advocate that kind of reactionary b.s. are the same people yelling "socialism" and "communism" because he dares to advocate providing basic health care to Americans. And as to his having problems, Iron, yeah... he's having the same problem progressives have been running into for 60 years on the subject: namely lies and misinformation promulgated by conservatives. Death panels and killing old people and suicide panels ... it's all a bunch of hogwash. Right-wing hate mongers are having a field day playing to the paranoia of conservatives. With Obama's election, all the nut-job closet racists, nativists and conspiracy theorists are coming out in force, bolstered by whackos like Limbaugh and Coulter. Here's what the Southern Poverty Law Center says about it in its introduction to "The Second Wave: Return of the Militias," which it released earlier this month: Almost a decade after largely disappearing from public view, right-wing militias, ideologically driven tax defiers and sovereign citizens are appearing in large numbers around the country. ... Authorities around the country are reporting a worrying uptick in Patriot activities and propaganda. "This is the most significant growth we've seen in 10 to 12 years," says one. "All it's lacking is a spark. I think it's only a matter of time before you see threats and violence." A key difference this time is that the federal government — the entity that almost the entire radical right views as its primary enemy — is headed by a black man. That, coupled with high levels of non-white immigration and a decline in the percentage of whites overall in America, has helped to racialize the Patriot movement, which in the past was not primarily motivated by race hate. One result has been a remarkable rash of domestic terror incidents since the presidential campaign, most of them related to anger over the election of Barack Obama. At the same time, ostensibly mainstream politicians and media pundits have helped to spread Patriot and related propaganda, from conspiracy theories about a secret network of U.S. concentration camps to wholly unsubstantiated claims about the president's country of birth.

Author

Ronni_Mott

Date

2009-08-22T17:56:34-06:00

ID

151136

Comment

I hang out more on the firearms forums more than I do here and I have never heard anyone threaten Obama, talk about taking the country back, or revenge (Walt where did that come from?) I have heard people say they don't trust him and they think he will try some kinda gun control later, look how he loaded up his cabinet with anti-gun people. Ronni- your wrong about it's only the right complaining about what he might do, I know lots of people (gun owners, collectors etc.) that voted for him, that still think he is very anti gun and have stock up on guns and ammo just in case. To call all gun owners nut jobs because of less than 1% are, would be just like me calling all black people crimimals because some of them are. Neither is true.

Author

BubbaT

Date

2009-08-22T19:56:50-06:00

ID

151137

Comment

Dear Ronni: When I have some money to spare, I'll look into it. Right now, I'm so far from broke it's not funny.

Author

Ironghost

Date

2009-08-22T20:56:37-06:00

ID

151140

Comment

I hang out more on the firearms forums more than I do here and I have never heard anyone threaten Obama, talk about taking the country back, or revenge (Walt where did that come from?) Come check out the Clarion Ledger forums and you can see plenty of it...

Author

Rico

Date

2009-08-23T14:21:07-06:00

ID

151141

Comment

The CL panders to divisiveness and hatred. If that's all you've got for news, you're going to have a one-sided view of the world.

Author

Ironghost

Date

2009-08-23T14:40:48-06:00

ID

151142

Comment

Not all I've got, just a good place to go to view right wing nut cases at their best- sort of like going to the zoo...

Author

Rico

Date

2009-08-23T15:18:44-06:00

ID

151143

Comment

Rico- The C-L doesn't have have firearms forum, beside that if you look at their forum nobody post anything on them, now the comments on the news stories,yeah you get some real nutcases but those are the people who are buying guns that's just a bunch of dumbass rednecks hiding behind screen names trying to get a rise out of everybody.

Author

BubbaT

Date

2009-08-23T17:26:18-06:00

ID

151144

Comment

Actually, in the "politics" section of their forums, there was a long running thread (several years old, hundreds of posts) concerning firearms. Just went back to find the link though, and it is gone- another victim of the latest purge...

Author

Rico

Date

2009-08-23T18:41:39-06:00

ID

151145

Comment

Rico- I have seen and posted in that thread, but one thread on a newpaper's politics forum dosen't make it a firearms forum.lol

Author

BubbaT

Date

2009-08-23T20:13:29-06:00

ID

151146

Comment

The NRA has ticked off some folks on the extreme right by defending, in several high-profile instances, black folks whose access to guns was illegally restricted by police. Post-Katrina is one example, but there have been others. If you're looking for extremist nuts, Gun Owners of America is your poison. The executive director, Larry Pratt, has such a scary history with antisemitic and white supremacist groups that even Pat Buchanan considered him a liability.

Author

Tom Head

Date

2009-08-24T02:50:11-06:00

ID

151156

Comment

Bubba, You're correct that not all gun owners are nut jobs, and if you re-read the post, I never said that. What I said is that nut jobs threatening Obama and the buildup of guns is related. And the link between the two are right-wing nut jobs like Limbaugh and Coulter, who promote the idea that Obama is going to overturn the U.S. Constitution and take away everyone's guns. They're also the people screaming "socialist" and "communist" the loudest. Despite their sensationalism and Obama's opinions on the subject, there's simply no evidence that Obama will do anything of the sort, and as has been pointed out, it would be political suicide for him to try. However, plenty of politicians and citizens are anti-gun and/or believe our gun laws allow far too many extraordinarily dangerous weapons on the street. And Bubba, just because you haven't seen the reports about death threats to Obama, that doesn't mean they haven't happened. Google "Obama death threat," for a sampling. Here's an MSNBC video of threats to Obama and other Dems over health care.

Author

Ronni_Mott

Date

2009-08-24T12:30:30-06:00

ID

151157

Comment

I'm still wondering why death threats against Obama are special. Presidents have been threatened since, oh, Washington.

Author

Ironghost

Date

2009-08-24T12:48:03-06:00

ID

151158

Comment

From the first sentence in the first paragraph in the article at the top of this page: "President Obama has gotten more death threats in a shorter period of time than any other president in U.S. history. "

Author

Rico

Date

2009-08-24T13:00:24-06:00

ID

151161

Comment

Iron, I know you didn't miss the part about death threats against Obama being up by 400 percent. That's four-hundred percent in case you missed it. IOW, if there were 10 threats against Bush every month, there are now 40 against Obama. And did you miss the fact that the Secret Service says it's understaffed and under-financed? It's a mistake to be cavalier about threats and dismiss them as "fringe." The last time there was this much threatened violence coupled with a rise in militia activity, Timothy McVeigh blew up the building in Oklahoma City.

Author

Ronni_Mott

Date

2009-08-24T13:58:02-06:00

ID

151164

Comment

Yup, missed the point. I mean, a threat against the president is serious correct? I mean, you guys probably cringed when all of the whacko-left nutjobs at HuffPo were calling for Bushes Head, right? I want to make sure we're on the same page, because I can't understand why threaten a president.

Author

Ironghost

Date

2009-08-24T15:22:37-06:00

ID

151167

Comment

Iron, if anyone on the left was saying things like "We want Bush to fail," or, "Go out and shout down any reasonable debate," during the Bush era, I missed it. I heard things like he should be impeached and that he should be tried for his activities, but not death threats. In addition, like the SPLC says, militia activity went down during those years. The U.S. is seeing unprecedented violent speech and activity from the right since Obama was nominated, including death threats to Obama himself and to numerous Democrats, especially those who agree with his ideas about health care. This isn't business as usual.

Author

Ronni_Mott

Date

2009-08-24T15:55:32-06:00

ID

151169

Comment

The problem with your logic, Ironghost, is that most HuffPo readers aren't gun nuts. You really can't be as dense as you're acting on this one. These wingnut-birther fools are showing up at Obama events with guns. Come on. You Republicans who are wallowing in denial are going to share responsibility when they go crazy and try to kill him if you don't at least start acknowledging that is going on. I will never understand why y'all have to claim people like that. I'd also like you to show us all the left-wing threats against Bush that piled up. Give us those Huffpo links, and if you can't, then shut up about something you can't support. This is not a site that defends people who want to kill the president. Got it?

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2009-08-24T15:57:32-06:00

ID

151172

Comment

Is Ironghost a lost cause or what? I put my money on his going down with the ship, the Titantic that is.

Author

Walt

Date

2009-08-24T16:46:41-06:00

ID

151176

Comment

I haven't had time to categorize all the stuff Bush&Co have had thrown at them. I do know that even a small investigation should find that the left is hardly innocent in this matter. Neither of you answered my question, which is telling.

Author

Ironghost

Date

2009-08-24T20:04:59-06:00

ID

151177

Comment

There have been lots of threats against Bush, http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/#photos, a simple Google search was all it took.

Author

BubbaT

Date

2009-08-24T20:12:27-06:00

ID

151178

Comment

I've always wondered about this- when it comes to assassinations, right wing nut cases seem to be better shots- witness Lee Harvey Oswald, Sirhan Sirhan and James Earl Ray vs. Arthur Bremer, Squeaky Fromme, and John Hinckley.

Author

Rico

Date

2009-08-24T20:46:32-06:00

ID

151179

Comment

Ronni-I almost forgot to ask just what is an extraordinarily dangerous weapon? I got shotguns,rifles,pistols but not one of those,they sound fun if you can tell what they are I think I might need one. ;)

Author

BubbaT

Date

2009-08-24T21:11:08-06:00

ID

151180

Comment

Rico- Oswald and Ray had military training don't know about Shirhan, his family moved from Jerusalem when he was 12 but he might have some kinda training they start them young in the Middle East. Bremer,Fromme and Hinckley never had any military training, That could be why they were bad shots. Who knows?

Author

BubbaT

Date

2009-08-24T21:21:03-06:00

ID

151181

Comment

The problem with trying to accurately document presidential assassination attempts is the Secret Service isn't going to reveal each and every instance, which might give a would-be assassin ideas on how to foil their methods. We may never know how many times Bush's life (or any modern President) was actually threatened. But if even the Secret Service is admitting that threats on Obama are 400% greater over a similar period for past presidents, it's not something that can be dismissed as a non-issue.

Author

Jeff Lucas

Date

2009-08-24T21:28:46-06:00

ID

151187

Comment

I have handguns to protect myself, my family and the belongings that we worked hard for. I realize not everyone is comfortable with guns, but I think it makes sense for a free society to allow its citizens to own guns (including multiple guns, with *some* regulation). I own guns for protection, but I do not live in fear of my government like some of the people who seem to want to use the 2nd Amendment as a defense to own an arsenal of military weapons that could take out a whole neighborhood, or to carry a firearm to a presidential healthcare forum. The rise in gun sales, the sharp increase in threats against the President, the hysteria from talk radio pundits and some teapartyers...its a recipe for something truly awful.

Author

Jeff Lucas

Date

2009-08-25T09:04:56-06:00

ID

151192

Comment

Jeff- what weapons can people buy that would take out a whole neighborhood? You can't buy bombs,rocket launchers,missle etc, so just what can you buy that would do that.

Author

BubbaT

Date

2009-08-25T10:26:03-06:00

ID

151197

Comment

All of you speaking about "sensible legislation" have zero clue what you are talking about. Go read 18 USC 922 et seq and see what "OTHER" sensible legislation you want. Go ahead and see what already is illegal. Go there and specifically tell me what other law will stop some crazy doing something bad. I tell you what. The only place I know guns are strictly forbidden is a prison. Doesn't seem like a really safe place though does it? The VT debacle? Because no one could stop him is why he killed so many. Why were the cops standing outside? Thought there were there to protect you. "I think it should be some legislation on how many guns someone should have or who can buy one! BUt I think it is a persons right to have "ONE" not fifty guns! " YOU do not get to decide how many guns I own just as "I" do not get to decide how many cars you have. BTW, Chicago is a gun free zone.. how's that working out for them?

Author

LawClerk

Date

2009-08-25T10:35:49-06:00

ID

151198

Comment

baquan- I agree with the mental health checks, but that could be accomplished with letting the FBI and ATF have or reporting to them peoples mental health records. As for a test like driver's license, driving is a privilege, owning a gun is a right. Virginia Tech is proof that we need to rethink gun free zones. That's were all the crazies go to shoot people, they rarely go where there might be someone with a gun to shoot back.

Author

BubbaT

Date

2009-08-25T10:36:10-06:00

ID

151200

Comment

"baquan- I agree with the mental health checks, but that could be accomplished with letting the FBI and ATF have or reporting to them peoples mental health records." You want to stop people from seeking treatment? Do something like this. Tell me how you would define someone with mental health issues. They take prozac? Depressed? Anxiety attacks? And if someone is hell bent on killing (remember there are laws against that too) then what's to stop them from using oh, I don't know, a car... or a knife...or a bat... to do it with? I am one of "those" people that will NOT let you infringe ONE MORE STEP on my rights. Try it. You are drawing the line in the sand behind me. And NOT ONCE have I ever said something on this website that requires moderation of my comments.

Author

LawClerk

Date

2009-08-25T10:39:56-06:00

ID

151201

Comment

The Supreme Court's position re the First Amendment and free speech has been that it can be restricted if there is a compelling government interest that justifies the restriction, and if the least restrictive means possible are used to protect that interest. No reason why the same standard can't be applied with respect to the Second Amendment, instead of the zero sum game of unlimited restriction vs. unlimited access. DC v. Heller was a step in the right direction, IMHO. I think we also need to get away from the line of thinking that says the Second Amendment is about guns. It isn't; it's about arms, which means anything from a paring knife to a hydrogen bomb. The question then becomes which arms the government can legitimately restrict under the Second Amendment, and which it can't, and under what circumstances.

Author

Tom Head

Date

2009-08-25T10:42:03-06:00

ID

151205

Comment

Tom- the government already restricts what arms can be owned.

Author

BubbaT

Date

2009-08-25T10:57:18-06:00

ID

151207

Comment

My point exactly. So we need to look at why it has been allowed to do so, and what we can discern from these general principles vis-a-vis firearm legislation. There is a stare decisis re the Second Amendment, and it comes from what is already being done without much input from the Supreme Court. This is why I think DC v. Heller is such a good precedent, even if I'm agnostic about the specific issue it decided (the handgun ban in DC). It comes from the right general place.

Author

Tom Head

Date

2009-08-25T11:02:54-06:00

ID

151208

Comment

Here is the thing, people should have the guts to admit the truth about guns and sensible gun legislation and enforcement. Whenever you hear about someone using multiple guns or having a stash of guns and ammo, it is an instance of a nut case that wants to kill a bunch of people. I can not recall ever hearing of an individual defending himself with several guns and a case of ammo. All the gun advocates need to stop making excuses for the nuts that have easy access to guns. They always act like it is such a need to have a gun immediately. Anyone in that kind of immediate danger needs to go to the police. Folks that are usually in a hurry to get a gun are in a hurry to use it. Responsible gun owners do not brag about how many guns they own or walk around like it is the Old West. People ought to be ashamed to associate with those people carrying guns at these rallies with the threatening signs. Actually, all that represents are the types of people that should not have guns.

Author

Goldenae

Date

2009-08-25T11:03:25-06:00

ID

151213

Comment

Baquan- Is accessibility really the problem? Before the Gun Control Act of 1968 guns were more accessible than they are now,but crime was lower then. Before 1968 you could order a gun from Sears and they shipped it to your house, no background checks,no nothing. You could cross statelines and buy a handgun. Even convicted felons could buy guns. So is accessibility the problem or weak laws on crime in general? Just last month some guy was convicted of manslaughter for shooting someone and sentenced, he got 4yrs, 2 suspended and 2 actual time, but he had been in jail 2 yrs waiting to go to trial so that counted as time served. So he was tried,convicted, and sentenced and walked out of the courtroom a free man all in the same day. We need to worry more about that, than more guns laws.

Author

BubbaT

Date

2009-08-25T11:31:34-06:00

ID

151214

Comment

BubbaT, do you realize that before the Gun Control Act of 1968 "when guns were more accessible," crimes against black folks were a given; a way of life here in Mississippi. Many crimes were not reported. People were just killed or shot for any reason.

Author

justjess

Date

2009-08-25T11:36:59-06:00

ID

151215

Comment

Justless-yes I realize that but what does that have to do with what we are talking about? Crime was lower then in the U.S. as a whole, there wasn't enough crime in Mississippi back then to change that.

Author

BubbaT

Date

2009-08-25T11:40:46-06:00

ID

151218

Comment

Crime was lower then in the U.S. as a whole, there wasn't enough crime in Mississippi back then to change that. posted by BubbaT on 08/25/09 at 12:40 PM -- Bubba, you're missing the point. Mississippi has always been one of the most violent states -- if you factor in crime against black people. Most of those crimes weren't officially reported before 1968, because there was no one official to report it to; no one would take the report in the vast, vast majority of cases. To the dominant way of thinking, it wasn't a crime if committed against a black person, with a gun or not. So your point about crime before 1968 is a bad one because it's based on false information about what crime really was.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2009-08-25T12:34:56-06:00

ID

151219

Comment

Donna- I got the point, you are not getting mine, even factoring in unreported crimes committed against blacks in Mississippi in the 60's does not change the fact that crime was lower then than now. Total crime in U.S. 1965- 4,739,400 2006- 11,401,511 Murders in the U.S. in 1965- 9,960 Murders in the U.S. in 2006- 17,030 Where there over 6 million unreported crimes in 1965 against blacks? Don't think so. Where there over 10,000 unreported black people murdered in Mississippi? Don't think so either.

Author

BubbaT

Date

2009-08-25T12:53:17-06:00

ID

151222

Comment

Bubba, I don't think you understand just how under-reported crime was against people of color. Now, I don't argue that was the only factor -- that would be as overly simplistic as the argument you're trying to make -- but it is absolutely true that you cannot have reliable crime numbers from a period in which crimes against an entire race of people just weren't recorded in a reliable or consistent way. That means you need to find another argument to be taken seriously. But if you insist on using unreliable 1960s-era crime numbers, let's do some more number-crunching. How many guns were there in the U.S. in 1965? What where the categories/types of guns and the numbers? How many of the murders/violent crimes were/are gun crimes? And please use sources without connections to the NRA or other gun-nut groups.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2009-08-25T13:03:43-06:00

ID

151224

Comment

Why post numbers about the numbers of guns in the U.S. in 1965,types or even gun crimes,what's the point? They are unreliable. Because crimes go unreported everyday, guns are sold in legal face to face deals that throw the ownership numbers off,guns are lost and stolen, gun crime numbers are off too because of the unreported crimes. Those pesky anti-gun people have been spouting unreliable numbers for years, and lying to the people of the U.S. Glad to know that now, not that I listen to them, but I will listen less now. : )

Author

BubbaT

Date

2009-08-25T14:54:27-06:00

ID

151238

Comment

Bubba, thank you for making my point about unreliable numbers for me. That didn't take much work. So, care to try a different argument now? ;-)

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2009-08-26T05:34:38-06:00