loquitur

Well, Roachboy, I read through Scalia's opinion quickly but here's how I understood his analysis of the language. The bill of rights got ratified in 1791. People voting on ratification, in the aggregate, discussed the proposals. The discussions presupposed an understanding of the proposals - that understanding was the "original public meaning." That original public meaning is what got ratified, so that's what we have to uncover.

In terms of the language, he distinguished between the preamble and the operative clause. As written, the 2nd says, "because X, your right Y is protected." His view is that protection of the right doesn't change merely because the then-justification might evolve to another form. (in this respect, think of the fact that a fair amount of labor legislation was originally passed for the purpose of keeping blacks out of more lucrative labor markets. Once that purpose went away, the legislation was not thereby invalid, it merely took on a new purpose. of course, the exclusionary purpose wasn't explicit, but I think the analogy nevertheless works). It's not even clear that the militia no longer exists - it depends on how you view it (we might all still be the unorganized militia, though the thought of me with a gun is frightening) - but that's a different issue. People still shake hands to greet each other even though they're not examining each other for weapons, right?

The dissent's position is that the 2nd Amendment is the only one that grants merely a governmentally sanctioned rights (as distinct from rights that are protected against governmental infringement). That's not a "right" as anyone really understands the term, is it?

As I said above, I don't really care about guns, it's not something I get excited about. I do care about being told what to do, though.

pocon1

nothing to say

The_Dunedan

Orders to that effect.

Edited to add; the Unorganized Militia would not turn on the People. The Unorganized Militia -is- the People. The Organized Militia, on the other hand...orders to that effect.

Ask the people in New Orleans who had their guns taken away and pets shot by the Los Angeles P.D., the 82nd Airborne, and those scumsucking Blackwater pukes. Ask the FLDS parents who woke up to M113's coming up the driveway. Ask Randy Weaver and Kevin Harris, ask Kenyon Ballew's wife, ask anybody who's ever had their shit kicked by a cop because they were black/white/rich/poor/smelly/female/gay/etc.

There's your answer.

Willravel

Blackwater I'd be worried about. Not the Army. Not the Marines. Not the Navy.

Oh, and not the Coast Guard. Can't forget them. Semper Paratus.

dksuddeth

but it seems that some police agencies have no problem doing it, i.e. katrina aftermath.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Willravel

I know I'm not your BFF, but I refuse to think that our perceptions are so different on this. I'm 100% sure you've got military buddies. Ask them. "Would you attack American civis?"

pocon1

nothing to say

dksuddeth

I'd appreciate you showing me where, in the constitution, that any government body has the 'authority', not right, to order me off of my own property.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Willravel

It's called eminent domain and it's in the 5th, albeit limited (we get "just compensation").

Baraka_Guru

In contemporary terms, we call that "fair market value."

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

pocon1

nothing to say.

roachboy

loquitor: thanks. i understood the moves scalia made--and the arguments he mustered for them---and i think this notion of "original public meaning" is chimerical, a space for projection and not something that can be coherently reconstructed--and like i said, if you think about it, it actually creates trouble for his claim in a way in that, like i said, i pushes you toward some notion of reception of claims in 1791, which is linked to some sense of context--which scalia's argument presupposes was singular. all i pointed out was the obvious problem, which you can get to without having to follow scalia, but just by thinking about the idea of reception context 1791 style--there were urban and rural populations--from which follows--can you assume the same presuppositions as to right to bear arms obtained for each---which comes down to "did these populations as a matter of course carry guns"--to which the answer is yes and no, rural and urban.

the other argument--that the right to bear arms int he context of a militia presupposes a broader, unstated right to bear arms seems stronger logically, but it also strays quite far from the text---and since that interpretation is basically made coherent via the notion of reception/"public meaning"--problems with the latter creates problems for the former.

i am looking at this via my historian self, btw, and i bring alot of scepticism to the whole idea of strict construction because of the problems that attend trying to make anything like a strong claim to "public meaning" in 1791--and this is the easy one--the notion of "original intent" is ludicrous---not so much as an idea (you can string together the words, the idea exists) but as a frame that you can establish firmly enough to use as a way of interpreting law, particularly if those interpretations are to break with "activist" precedent.

but it's likely that looking at the same arguments from a lawyer's perspective would focus on different things, and i'm not sure of the extent to which problems of historical method impact upon strict construction arguments for a lawyer---i would think they would, but i'm not sure.

i should say that i found the historical development of the argument through the 19th century to be interesting and well done---so the problem is in the premise. the demonstration i liked, even. scalia has good staff people, i take it, good researchers. and it's possible to find a demonstration interesting without buying the logic that informs it too, as an aesthetic matter.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

dksuddeth

it's at THAT point, unfortunately, the property is not considered yours anymore. You know I'm referring to property that hasn't been obtained through 'eminent domain', but through the so called authorities doing it for my safety.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

MSD

In theory, yes.

There are two gun stores in DC and both sell to law enforcement only. The DC police force strongly supported the gun ban. It is reasonable to believe that if either store were to begin selling handguns to civilians, it would jeopardize their dealing with the police (biggest/only customer.) DC can still regulate the opening of gun stores through licensing and zoning. Given their intent to start enforcing other gun control laws now that the handgun ban and long arm disassembly laws are gone, it is reasonable to believe that they will make it near impossible or impossible to open a new gun store in the District.

I will make a very generous estimate that it will be no less than two years before the first handgun is legally purchased in Washington DC.The Miller case ruled that NFA taxes on a sawed-off shotgun are reasonable because SBS' are not used by any organized militia. By the Miller test, any gun that is in common use by any military is theoretically open to private ownership. Combine that with Heller and a strict constructionist would have no choice but to reopen the registry to Title II select fire guns and machine guns in common military use.
In 1976, the homicide rate was 26.8 per 100,000. The gun ban was passed in early February 1977 and through 2005, the murder rate never dropped below that number, and frequently exceeded it by significant amounts. I'm not going to get into formal statistical analyses, and a single law cannot be found responsible for a widespread statistic of a scope greater that could be affected by the law, but at no point was there a reduction of the annual murder rate after the ban was passed.
People are too busy enjoying their "medical" marijuana (PLEASE NOTICE THE WINKING SMILEY!)
The last time members of the military were polled, 75% said that they would not fire on American citizens on American soil as a police action and 50% said that they would refuse any order to fire on Americans on American soil for any reason. I forget how the second question was worded, exactly, but it seemed to imply that if the country had gotten to the point that violent revolution appealed to enough people that they actually did it, half of the military would side with the revolution.

william

So why shouldn't cities/counties/states be allowed to resrtict the weapons you own? I live in SoFL. Unless you live in the far west, why do you need more than a hand gun? Even living far west, why would you need more than a shotgun? Against a gator? They are not that fast. Step it up - Black Panther. If you are that slow a shooter, you should not be there.

Willravel

William, there's not an actual reason, more like a "right". I've asked many times why one would need more than one or two guns for defense, and all I've ever really gotten was either a vague threat from the government or that it's "a right". The only reasonable reason I've been given is "I like shooting", which I suppose isn't a bad reason so long as one's responsible. Many people on TFP use guns as a recreational pursuit.

Cynthetiq

Why do you need more than 1 car?

It's about choice and different abilities.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Willravel

I would imagine there are two reasons for one person having more than one car: fun or necessity. Fun would be a track car, off roader, etc., necessity would be a van for a big family, truck for work, electric car for driving to work.

Apply the same to guns: fun or necessity. Fun would be going out to the range and showing a target the true meaning of pain with as many different guns as you can afford, necessity would be either something like hunting or personal/home defense. I'm pretty sure I covered both of those, along with the "it's my right" non-answer. Still, that doesn't explain directly why someone would need more than one or two guns.

loquitur

roachboy, your skepticism is part of the larger debate about judicial review of a written constitution, which in turn raises the issue of why write things down at all. And that brings us back to Marbury v Madison. But that's a broader dispute and one for another day.

It's been pointed out that both of the sides in this case used some form of originalist reasoning, precisely because there is so little case law and other development of the Second Amendment that trying to figure out what the words meant to the framers is almost literally the only thing we have to go on.

william

Until recently, the 2nd Ammendment called for a "well regulated militia". Our Supreme Court could not (or would not) define that - so they dropped it and said that you have a right to defend yourself w/a gun.
I have no problem w/that. My problem is this - why is it the 2nd Ammendment must include the "right" to own any weapon of your choice, with no regulation?
No disrespect to the ruling, but just because I've never fallen under one of the categories listed not to have a weapon, does that automatactily give me the right to stockpile AK-47s? RPGs?

Cynthetiq

Fun or necessity? That's an absurd descriptor.

There are some cars you can tow with because the engine provides enough torque. You can't haul a ski boat with a small SUV like a RAV4 just because it has a towball in the back. Just because you have a large SUV doesn't mean you can comfortably seat 7 people. It's about application.

A slingshot, bow and arrow, crossbow, all pistol and rifle variants of .22, .357, .45, shotgun all have different abilities and used for different applications.

Use too high of a caliber when you are hunting small animals and you won't have anything left to eat. Use too small a caliber hunting large game and you may find yourself hurt by a charging large animal like a bear, lion, elephant.

Use a .22 to defend your home you man not stop a person on PCP because a .22 doesn't have enough velocity to put a person down on his ass like a .45 will.

I'd also state that when I was an avid practicing gun enthusiast. I liked to target practice with a .22 because the rounds were cheaper. I still got in .45 rounds, but not as many. I can't load cheaper rounds to practice in a higher caliber pistol.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

roachboy

loquitor--i would think the problem runs in the opposite direction--the requirement to write things down knowing that writing does not really stabilize meanings. which is neither good nor bad, a problem or its opposite.

william--that is the logic of scalia's argument--that there is such a right presupposed--but the distinction between the ability to in principle organize a militia and the other right is seemingly that of what type of gun it is ok to possess--so it seems to follow that a handgun or hunting rifle would fall under it, where an ak would not.
though i suspect that were the argument a strict construction of strict construction, it's have to result in one or another version of the claim that either the constitution cannot be interpreted as commenting in any way on ak-47s because they weren't part of the public meaning of the amendment in 1791 OR that in the platonic aether of forms, under the classification GUNS there has always been the form "ak-47"--it was only discovered and condensed into the shape of a metal object 40 years ago, but was always extant.

presumably, then, the moment of "public reception" of the amendment would also have been one of mystical insight, the Giants who were ratifying the sacrosanct Statements having access at once to this mortal coil 1791 stylee and to the aether of Forms that shaped it.

which is why we, in 2008, have to be subordinated to what the mythical Public of Giants from 1791 Understood.
because we are less, you see.

this seems to follow from strict construction logic, such as it is.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

host

Baraka and willravel, I've assembled some data and stats here, in an attempt to encourage both of you to stop patting yourselves on the back. I've highlighted poverty rates in these four US counties/districts, and I've portrtayed will's county, Santa Clara, in the worst possible light, by displaying only the murder/crime stats for San Jose, not for the whole county. Prince George's, MD, does not contain a major city, it's count seat has a population of under 700. Dekalb County, GA, includes the a more affluent portion of the city of Atlanta....Atlanta is spread across portions of both Fulton and Dekalb counties. Washington DC is a city in a federal "district".

See if you can spot what is different about Santa Clara and Canada, compared to the other three, US areas? The crime rates defy easy explanation, since only Washington has a poverty problem, and Prince George's does not contain an urban center.

Since you guys have been taking the bows, related to how "violence free" your home areas happen to be.... what do you think is going on in the other areas....to explain the dramatic differences in gun related violence?

The data above for one extremely low crime county, and three areas with very high. violent crime rates, indicate that the problem is not so simple that it can be said with any certainty that gun control had no effect on the problem of gun violence in Washington, DC, over the past 30 years. Handguns are easy to obtain in Dekalb Cty, GA, and much easier to obtain in San Jose, CA, and Prince Georges, MD, than in Washington DC, yet the murder rates are very high in two of three of those other places.....

Baraka_Guru

You should summarize and further interpret the data, host. I'm not sure what you point is exactly. I don't think we were patting ourselves on the back, and not especially when it comes to gun control. I'll wait for you to come back and present your case a bit further. For now, all I see is population density, poverty rates, and crime. Can you present the essential data and give me a more through interpretation that speaks directly to it?

Oh, and about the 10.8% "poverty rate" in Canada. You forgot this CIA note for others to see:

note - this figure is the Low Income Cut-Off (LICO), a calculation that results in higher figures than found in many comparable economies; Canada does not have an official poverty line (2005)

LICO is scaled by family size and community. You'd have to apply that to the American areas to have a direct comparison. Otherwise, 10.8% would seem higher in contrast. Statistics Canada uses this scale method as a more accurate representation of poverty. Not everyone does this, unfortunately.

EDIT: I should be more fair and give you more feedback. I do think there are several indicators that would help determine the level of crime and violence in a community. They include: average income levels, employment rate, health, education, access to community services. There are a few more, but I can't think of them from the top of my head. Should we factor all of these in?

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

host

The data and stats from Dekalb, GA and Prince George's MD, contradict all of that ! My point, notwithstanding how negatively it might be received, is that the commonality between Dekalb, Prince George's, and Washington DC, is in the category of racial majority, as it is in Santa Clara and Canada. '

Dekalb (#2) and Prince George's (#1) boast the highest household average income of all counties with African American majority populations in the US, and Santa Clara enjoys one of, it not the highest average household income, and that is where the similarity ends.....



Charles City County has a population too tiny to be noteworthy.....

Baraka_Guru

That's average income; what about income distribution by race?

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

host

I don't understand your question....I've shown you the best...as far as household income and low poverty rates, vs. the worst, in three counties/districts where black Americans are the majority population.

Maybe the info at thes two links will verify the extent that the wealth is not held by a Caucasian minority, in the wealthiest county, and the high crime impacts in a way that probably feeds on itself:


http://books.google.com/books?id=Su4...um=2&ct=result

http://209.85.215.104/search?q=cache...lnk&cd=1&gl=us

I've driven through DC neighborhoods where the poverty is so obvious from the look of the blighted residential and commercial buildings....those not boarded up or burnt out, that it broke my heart to think it could occur, on such a scale, just blocks from the Capitol and the White House. I've also driven through neihgborhoods in Dekalb and North Fulton, GA, where every home was upscale and featured late model luxury cars in the driveways...and each was owned and occupied by African American families. The areas are so upscale that it was possible, when encountering a police patrol car, to wonder if the officer is regarding you as suspicious looking simply by your presence...."wrong race", driving a vehicle not of a quality befitting the area....

It is an experience the opposite of segregation due to poverty. These segregated neighborhoods are still racially driven, but because of wealth, not poverty.

Maybe, in the US, a tendency towards commission of violent acts is a cultural trait....for lack of a better rhyme or reason:
Challenge in Prince George's to find customer service oriented employees:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...062301267.html

ubertuber

host, would you mind restating a) what it is you're trying to get us to discuss, and b) what is has to do with the recent Supreme Court ruling? I think many of us aren't quite following your logic.

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

host

in post #63, I responded to this:
My posts after that, were resplies to Baraka's questions, points, challenges...the main point is that gun control, if the examples of the disparity in violent crime stats is an indication, should be up to local officials. Gun control appears to be needed much less in San Jose/Santa Clara, than it does in DC, Prince George's, and in Dekalb.... We have the added burden in our society that it is politically incorrect to examine or discuss whether violent crime is a cultural or an ethnic trait.

It does not seem to be rooted in conditions of poverty, but high incidence of violent crime is most prevalent in highly African American populated areas in the US, irregardless of average income and education levels.

This is curious, since a dramatically large percentage of black males of an age group most prone to criminal activity, is already incarcerated.

I think the Supreme Court majority ignored the demographic realities of 2008, and focused on now irrelevant 18th century conditions and opinions. Maybe if guns were as strictly controlled in all of the US as they are in the UK, there would not be the "leakage" of guns from permissive sales in Georgia, to Washington DC. Santa Clara, where willravel lives, does not have the violent crime problem that DC has, so a different local and regional approach can be practised there, then in DC, with it's high gun crime and it's close proximity to guns coming out of Georgia.....

ubertuber

The first point could follow from the second two, but I suppose one would have to have a pragmatic approach to gun control rather than the stand of principles we resort to.

It would also be the basis for ruinous lawsuits aimed at local low enforcement.

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

Willravel

My vocation works directly with those living in poverty in the Santa Clara County, particularly San Jose. We not only provide food, shelter, and clothing, but are directly connected with city and private programs for job training and placement. Regardless of the fact that poverty in San Jose is quite relatively low, more needs to be done. Anything above maybe 1% (with a 1% margin of error) is too much.

roachboy

the argument, then, is basically that easily available guns effectively militarize class conflict--which is continual, everywhere---or, another way, make its violence more explicit. so that areas in which class divisions are more severe and in which the geography of class conflict is such that the groups are closer together would expect to see a different pattern of gun-related violence than would areas which are more segregated spatially.

if you add to this the fact that income levels are not a particularly informative indicator of the nature of class conflict---poverty being in a sense worse in the states than in many other places which are poorer in terms of income across the board (amartya sen correlates income levels with morality rates to generate this argument..it's a pretty compelling one, if you see the data)---adding guns to the routinized violence of class divisions is a real problem.

the "principled"--or platonic--approach to questions of gun control make no sense. it has to be approached on a local basis.

it's not obvious that the decision of last week upsets anything about this--it seems to me that it makes absolute bans more difficult, that's all.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

host

roachboy, I am posting data/stats that indicate gun violence is largely rooted in the opposite of what you posted....it isn't related to "class" conflict. It has become part of the culture of African Americans, if the statistics are an indicator, and it doesn't seem to be related to poverty or to below average education level, either.... By and large, they use guns to prey on and to kill each other.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/2007prelim/table4il_mo.htm
Boston 2007 Population 591,855 Violent crimes 6,838 Murder 66 Forcible Rape 263


http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/2007prelim/table4il_mo.htm

Detroit 2007 Population 860,971 Violent crimes 19,683 Murder 383 Forcible Rape 344

Detroit has 1-1/2 times the population of Boston, triple the numbers of annual violent crimes, and 383 murders, vs. just 66, in Boston. It seems that the volume of violent crime is much more related to who lives in a place, than it does to how much money and opportunities they have.

Boston actually had slightly more per capita reported forcible rapes in 2007, than Detroit had.... Is it possible that rape is just less reported in Detroit, due to fear by victims and witnesses, of being murdered if they cooperate with police and the courts?

If poverty or class friction was the problem it is assumed to be, affluent Prince George's county should have a much lower per capita murder rate than the city of Boston, and so should Dekalb County, Ga., but they don't.

The stats show outsized African American populations, regardless of household income and poverty rates, experience outsized rates of violent crime, despite heavy per capita incarceration rates of most likely repeat violent criminals.

There is an argument for strict local gun bans, and stepped up nationwide control of interstate gun traffic, even if it means restricting hand gun purchases to the extent they are restricted in NY City. Not to do so, will apparently continue the loss of economic activity and livability of areas with outsized African American populations, regardless of social spending and reforms.

roachboy

host--as a general claim, that makes little sense to me.
the problems seem to me legion.
to start with, what exactly is "the culture of african americans"? is it a single entity? on what basis do you say that?

the evidence above seems strange as well--like there's information not given.
this i want to look into further--do you have more information about this story?

the inferences you make seem problematic as well, but how would follow from the above---basically, it doesn't sit right...something feels off about it.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

host

roachboy, I was shocked that this could be published in a restaurant industry publication, when I first read about Dr. Lynn's research, in 2002:
I don't mean to trivialize violent crime by comparing it to tipping....I present it because it is a well studied and reported behavorial trait, peculiar to one group of people....not necessarily to a race, but to a subset of the American public, categorized in a way that could easily be dismissed as politically incorrect or prejudiced.... but my anecdotal experience says that it isn't.
It also seems a valid comparison, because it is about attitude and behavior that transcends income and education.

.....the "problem", is....my anecdotal experience, before reading it, completely supported it. I also have enough firsthand experience to know that there are exceptions, wonderful people who have been gracious enough to influence me not to prejudge. It isn't the numbers of these gracious individuals who cause that positive influence, in my experience they are few and far between, but they are there.

I "get" what you are asking, about "the culture of african americans". I also "got" the Wapo author's point in the opinion piece in my last post. New Hampshire has a one percent African American population, yet I read that caucasians are incarcerated at 1/9 the per capita rate (286 per 100,000, vs. 2650 ) of that state's African American population. My reaction was that it was an obvious symptom of injustice. What should my reaction be to the violent crime rates in affluent Prince George's and Dekalb?

How do we have "balance" if we don't talk about it. I can easily fall into a conversation with a waitstaff co-worker who is African American, about the problem of the African American public's attitude towards tipping for dining service. The reason is because we all live equally, with the effects of it...share the same experience, every shift.

We go home after work, and we do not share the same experience. My neighbors are not shooting at me....Neither are Scalia's or Thomas's !

roachboy

i am still confused about the article you posted, even more after looking into it a little...the basis for my suspicion really is the use of aggregated data to characterize what appears to be a socially diverse area. i found a crime data map here:

http://pgcrime.info/

and looked at the homicide data since january of this year (before i got distracted and went outside to look at 15 ducks wandering around and a boat that was drifting up the river) and they're concentrated in a tight ring around the edge of washington. assaults are concentrated in the same area--which makes me wonder what's up in the immediate area around washington dc.

somehow i think the article is just way to simple--milloy even blames hip hop at the end of it for all this. which is nonsense.

i'm not saying that the simple reverse of your argument is always necessarily the case--i just think this information is curious--and getting past aggregation effects is kinda tough in the internet from essex massachusetts (presumably from elsewhere as well).

on the prison population of new hampshire--cynically, because i grew up there, nothing really surprises me. but that's just cynicism. now i have another datapoint to think about.

but on the pg county thing, i just am not sure of what's actually going on. the reporter seems to do a court beat, so works outward from police information--which is always a dicey affair. he also doesn't seem to like mentioning economic class very much--i read a bunch of his articles and it just doesn't figure in his reporting. i can't say why it isn't a variable exactly. but it's curious nonetheless.
perhaps class is out of fashion amongst bourgeois journalists.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

ubertuber

Is the question here whether arbitrary lines of social group or certain behaviors are the most powerful aggregator?

It seems like you are trying to parse whether people are a group because of some social cues or if they are a group because they shoot each other. Seems a little like missing the forest for the trees.

I know which classification would matter more to me if I was visiting.

The real weakness of host's point in my view is that the data set is small, specific to a few areas (which have more differences than crime statistics, such as enforcement practices, jobless rates, etc), and not really controlled too well.

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

roachboy

that's not what i was thinking about, comrade--i was wondering about missing correlations. my marxist self tends to equate violence and class conflict, absent other information--from there i tend to move to either confirm or falsify that linkage. it seems a more powerful explanatory variable than hip hop does.

the point is more that this county seems like many such--and many city neighborhoods--in that aggregated information doesn't really tell you much about any particular place--obvious enough point, really--so i wanted to see what i could find out. the washington post article seems written at a demographic that sees pgc through the aggregated image, as a nice middle class area beset with violence--and i just wonder if that is true in many, but not all, parts of the county, just as similar things can be true of many, but not all, parts of a neighborhood.

behind all this was my experience in logan square, which profiles in a very similar way in the aggregate but had considerable violence---less now than 5 years ago apparently--but still--in this fairly middle-class neighborhood, i heard gunshots more nights than i didn't. it wasn't terribly hard to work out that my predispositions in terms of trying to understand this sort of thing fit pretty well with the social reality of the area---but obviously it was only a general explanation, not providing any detail about why particular act x or y or z occurred.

that's more the direction i was thinking in.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

host

rb, when I think of Essex, I think of http://www.woodmans.com/ ...I've only been there once, but the food was memorable.

I took a look, on your map, at assaults, just from May 1, 2008 until June 15. The ring extended outward a bit, from the murder incidents area.

The "tight ring" is also adjacent, on both sides, to I-495, the beltway around DC.

I think you would also find that the county's population is concentrated where the crime is, and there is this:

http://books.google.com/books?id=Su4...um=1&ct=result

The one large new mall in the county, opened in 2001, was not built in the more centrally located Mitchelville, even though median income is $7000 higher there, but in the northeast corner of the county, in Bowie, population 65 percent caucasian, almost the opposite population average in the rest of the county.

The Prince George's areas bordering DC are probably cursed by their proximity to DC, but that is where the beltway...the major thoroughfare is located.

rb and uber, what go me started on this series of posts was willravel's mention of the very low murder rate in San Jose, and when I checked it out, I saw that San Jose had a tiny African American population. I already knew that Prince George's and Dekalb were wealthy, African American, and experienced surprisingly high murder rates.....

The stats of Houston indicate that the city is 1/4 African American, probably has a large population of undocumented Mexicans, and an outsized violent crime rate....

roachboy

woodman's is across the street, down a couple doors...i can't eat their food because it's cooked in lard and seems to do bad things to me afterward--the wages of being a (semi) vegetarian.
farnhams is better, i think.
but the only way to know is more fieldwork, comrade.

the larger point relative to the thread seems to be a series of arguments for local control over questions relating to gun availability, with different attempts to demonstrate the claim.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite