Although the FBI reports that murders nationwide have 'leveled off', a Northeastern University study suggests quite the opposite for the black youth. Although the complete study will be released next Monday, some of the statistics which have been reported are alarming. For example, last year "426 black males between the ages of 14 and 17 were killed in gun crimes", which is up 40% from 2000. "An estimated 964 in the same age group committed fatal shootings in 2007 — a 38 percent increase from seven years earlier". Northeastern criminologist James Alan Fox, who co-authored the study, commented, "there is an urgency for reinvestment in children and families. In essence, we need a bailout for kids at risk."
My Take: This is a horrific trend, which seems to only be getting worse. The author's of this study suggest that is the Bush's administration's fault for moving funding away from 'hometown security' to 'homeland security'. What?!? This is not about government funding, money could not solve this issue. This is about families. This is about parenting. You can not blame the government for something you can't take care of on your own, in your own home. Bill Cosby, in his controversial speech, said "if there was parenting, he wouldn’t have picked up the Coca Cola bottle and walked out with it to get shot in the back of the head. He wouldn’t have. Not if he loved his parents. And not if they were parenting! Not if the father would come home. "
Barack Obama reiterated the same concepts in his Father's Day Speech, where he said "We know the statistics - that children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime; nine times more likely to drop out of schools and twenty times more likely to end up in prison." He gave suggestions to the congregants on how to improve these unacceptable situations, the first was by setting an example of excellence for the children. "If we want to set high expectations for them, we've got to set high expectations for ourselves." This example of excellence is one reason I am excited he did win the election, and will be the 44th President of the United States. What better example of being an involved and loving husband and father, setting a 'high expectation' for himself and achieving it. I hope and pray that this will make a difference in the lives of the black youth, and that in 10 years from now, Northeastern University will have better statistics to report.
12 comments:
Good for him. He definitely is a family man and so hopefully people will look to him as an example. The Pres. might not have as much control as we give them credit for (or blame we like to place on them), but the one thing that they can always do is be a good example. Obama has more eyes on him than any other President in a long time. I really hope that they can look at the good and look to him as an example particularly in this way.
My husband and I often reference this study done re. single parent homes. I don't have the reference but basically the conclusion was that children raised by a single father vs. a single mother were less likely do commit crimes, end up in jail or being single parents on their own. They stated that fathers create boundaries and enforce discipline to a greater extent than mothers. Ironically, the single parents in the black community tend to be the mothers and not fathers doing the job. We definitely want to give the moms creidt where credit is due, but the lack of fatherhood shows it's effects alarmingly.
On a similar note, there was another study done on elephants in Africa. When the male elephants were being killed for their ivory tusks the mothers were left behind to care for the babies. They noticed how undiciplined the children were--particularly the young male elephants. They were more agressive and acted out in very distructive ways.
We need mothers and fathers. But we especially can't shrug off the influence of a dad like our society often likes to do.
I'm curious if gun-related crime has risen amongst other groups of teen boys, and at what rate. I would guess it's on the rise in all the groups. Instead of more money for programs, what's already being spent should focus more on helping parents, coupled with...and you probably knew I was going to say it...better gun laws. Less gun powder on the streets = less crime, less death.
The problem is, shooting people is ALREADY illegal. The same people who are using guns to shoot people are already comitting crimes, without the guns being illegal. You'll never get THEIR guns. You'll only get the guns of the law-abiding people who enjoy hunting and/or protection in their homes.
On to the actual reason I clicked on "comment".
If the world only knew that "no other success can compensate for failure in the home", and "the greatest work you will ever do will be within the walls of your own home". I could go on and on. Home is absolutely where the answer is. I'm sure that the gun crime rate has increased among all races, but so has the rate of broken families and neglect and so on. The answer will always be in the home.
As for Barack Obama. I feel pretty much about him the way I have often felt about Pres. Bush. (Although I disagree with Obama's politics way more) I think he's generally a good man, trying to do what he thinks is best. I hope that he becomes a hero to the young black kids who always thought they were limited due to their race. I think he already has, somewhat. Maybe those statistics WILL change!!
I have to agree, money that is already allocated to this should be directed at gun law ENFORCEMENT not writing new laws. Just as Ashley stated, new gun laws won't take the guns away from those who have them illegally and use them to commit crimes.
And to answer your question about the crime rates in other races, among white males of the same age it only increased by about 7% over the 8 years, compared to 40%. And among women it went down. We have learned how to talk out our problems!
Hence a key difference between Democrats and Republicans. We have completely different views on what will increase the safety of Americans.
This from the wife of a big time hunter. Even he sees no need for the every day *rich* Joe to be able to buy a 50 cal riffle, that was originally designed for the military - basically killing machines that can pick off a target with extreme accuracy at over a mile away.
I can't tell you how relieved I am that they can be purchased at our local gun shop - or at least you used to be able to. Apparently everybody bought them up when Obama was elected.
Wonderful...
Okay I'm done ranting.
Gun control doesn't stop people from shooting, it just stops people from being able to protect themselves. The guns will always be available to those who want the, legal or not. Just like drugs, the underground market will rise up even stronger. The result, the bad people still have guns and the good people don't. It's another fascist idea. Take away guns because it's for the good of the people. Then once the guns are gone the govt can come in and sweep them off to concentration camps because they have no way to defend themselves. Emotionally, I can enderstand the theory of gun control, but the results of actually following through can be detromental. Emotions should never over rule commen sense. Let history speak for itself.
One more note, the Constitution (you know, the document that's just paper with ink on it) states that we have the right to bear arms. If in the last days the Constitution is to "hang by a thread" then I believe that gun control is a direct attack on the Constitution.
Chief Justice of the Michigan Supreme Court, Thomas M. Cooley said:
"The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose."
Out of all the reasons gun control is bad, this seems to be the most obvious. A criminal could care less about gun control laws! If they want a gun, they're not going to go down and get a background check. They're not going to get cataloged in a government system.
But, unfortunately, the law abiding citizen gets cataloged precisely because he doesn't wish to become a "criminal" in regards to his "right" to own a gun.
Baloney!!! The firepower that is available for purchase today is not what the founders envisioned!!
50 cal rifles, machine guns...Come on, that's just the most insane thing I've ever heard. And I'm the extremist?? Good grief.
I never said anything about 50 cal rifles. For me it's an issue regarding the right to bear arms--who can have them and who can't.
I never called you an extremist, I said I don't know if you are or if you aren't. But apparantly, me, who doesn't even own the measliest of hand guns, happens to be an extremist.
I'm an extremist when it comes to upholding the Constitution.
I have a friend who was furious because Obama wants to provide gun control and get the huge weapons off the street (I don't know the names of the guns- but I mean the big ones). She kept saying it takes away constitutional rights,goes against what 50% of the country wants, doesn't do anything to solve the problem, etc, etc, etc. Well, I later found out that the guns Obama wants to ban constitutes ONE PERCENT of the guns in this country- it does NOT outlaw hunting rifles, handguns, etc- it would outlaw the machine guns and such. Of course the NRA (which makes up about 2% of gun owners) supported McCain, but the other gun organization (I don't even know the name of it- I really know nothing about hunting) supported Obama because they understood he wasn't trying to take away constitutional rights, he was trying to make the streets in LA safer from gang bangers. Of course, I always hear the arguement "it won't work"- does that mean we shouldn't try? Does that mean we should accept machine guns on the streets as a natural part of life, and it isn't even worth trying to get them off? Should we not even try to stop abortions because they will happen anyway? Or gay marriage because it will eventually be legal no matter what we do? Of course not- and gun control is the same- it has to start somewhere, or it will never get better. We're not talking about the majority of guns- we are talking about the guns that only belong in war, not on civilian streets. I honestly can't believe anyone would argue those guns are OK and we should do nothing about it.
You know, there is a reason we are the most violent first world country in the world- and it isn't because people in America use their words to settle disputes. Oh, and statistics show that people who buy guns to protect themselves are more likely to accidently kill someone in their family then use it to protect themselves.
Just some thoughts- luckily, I am in complete agreement with Obama in regards to this issue, and I hope he will at least do something!
The second amendment was not written for hunting rights. The founders put that in to give the citizens the right and power to protect themselves from first, an infringing government or militia and second, from intruders. Where would the early members of our Church had been in Missouri when the GOVERNMENT signed an extermination order and their STATE militia came against them. This amendment, in the founders mind, was the last line of defense against an overbearing government.
The DC gun ban, which Obama supported, when initiated in 1976, although the population of DC has diminished, the number of murders almost doubled within 8 years. Violent crimes also immediately went up. Since it has been challenged in the courts beginning in 2003, crime rates have gone down. Interesting.
Also, President Elect-Obama's pick for Sect. of Justice, Eric Holder, during his private practice joined those who were fighting to save the DC gun ban. He believed the 2nd amendment "does not protect an individual right to keep and bear arms for purposes unrelated to a State's militia." So not only has Obama supported measures that greatly restrict gun ownership, he placed someone as Attorney General who has a misconstrued view of the 2nd amendment.
Joe Biden is the one you guys should be worried about...His record is outstanding in this department. :o)
I bet the NRA is shaking in its boots. Good times.
Post a Comment