President Obama’s Anti-Business Economic Policies Responsible for Rise in Gun Crime

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 6th, 2013

Week in Review

Following the Sandy Hook Shooting, the Aurora movie theater shooting, the shooting of Gabriella Giffords in Tucson, etc., there has been a movement by those on the left to push for gun control.  Because guns were to blame for all of these shootings.  Not the shooters.  President Obama and other Democrats said it was elementary.  Get rid of the guns and you get rid of these crimes.  For without these guns these shooters would have been placid and congenial members of their community.  Greeting their fellow citizens with friendly salutations and helping little old ladies cross the street.  Yes, that’s the world we could have.  According to Democrats.  If only we get rid of our guns (see Wave of street violence shakes Baltimore by Justin Fenton, Justin George and Luke Broadwater posted 6/29/2013 on The Baltimore Sun).

The ongoing violence — three more shootings, one of them fatal, occurred Saturday — is calling attention once again to Baltimore’s homicide rate and gun violence problem, which had been in decline in recent years. Last year, however, the number of people killed in Baltimore increased 10 percent. And at the midpoint of 2013 the number of homicides — 117 — is the highest in six years, raising questions about whether the city is backsliding.

Other cities have seen a similar trend, though crime rates have dropped significantly in Washington, New York and Dallas. Last year, violent crime rose in the United States for the first time in six years, with the largest increases occurring in cities like Baltimore with populations between 500,000 and 1 million, where homicides increased 12 percent. Among cities in that population range, Oklahoma City, Louisville, San Francisco and Memphis saw significant percentage increases, though none has a murder rate approaching Baltimore’s…

So there had been a decline in gun crime in “recent years.”  Odd.  I don’t recall any new gun control legislation in “recent years” to account for that decline in gun crime.  If guns cause gun crime than any fall in gun crime must correspond to new laws restricting gun ownership.  At least, according to those on the left.  Yet we’ve had a decline in gun crime without a corresponding rise in restrictions to gun ownership.  Puzzling.  Because those on the left say that this is just impossible.  For if we can have a fall in gun crime without new gun control legislation then all of their arguments to pass new gun control legislation are nothing but lies.  Which they probably are.  For there are other reasons for a rise in crime.

“We can’t stop, we can’t let up, because I know there’s still a lot of active gangs, and as long as those gangs are still in business, you have the potential for crime,” [Jim] Graham [Washington City Councilman] said…

And it’s not just because of job growth in those cities, Roman suggested. Huge surges of immigrants filling those cities have contributed to lowering crime, he said. Immigrants move into blighted areas and create cohesive communities with low crime — contrary to stereotypes that such communities cause societal problems, he said.

“It’s about racial and economic segregation,” Roman said. “It’s about immigration and gentrification…”

So it’s not guns but racial and economic segregation.  And gentrification.  In other words government is the cause for this rise in gun crime.  For their anti-business economic policies cause unemployment.  Especially for the unskilled.  And the young.  These policies are responsible for urban decay.  They first chased businesses out of their cities.  And those who did not follow the jobs went instead on government subsistence.  Giving these people little reason to get out of bed in the morning.  Little reason to work on any job skill.  But they only subsist on government subsistence.  While having a lot of spare time on their hands.  Where they spend time thinking about a better life.  A better life that takes more money than the government gives them.  So they turn to gangs.  And the drug trade.

Meanwhile immigrants move into little pockets of distressed areas.  Because it’s all they can afford.  And they work hard.  Building a business.  And a community.  Among themselves.  Leaving those on government subsistence on the outside looking in.  Meanwhile affluent middle class move into areas with great potential.  Areas on the water.  Old warehouse districts.  Etc.  Build them up.  And push their little borders out.  Displacing those remaining in what little was remaining of their old neighborhoods into other distressed neighborhoods.  Creating that racial and economic segregation.  And gentrification.

Ander said [Chicago] appears to have headed off a sustained increase in gun violence by broadening its approach to include funding for school-based programs for at-risk youth and a private-sector fundraising drive to expand other youth programs.

“If you rely only on the police to suppress and reduce crime, there are other unintended costs,” she said, referring to policies that strain relations with the public…

Marc Morial, president of the National Urban League and mayor of New Orleans from 1994 to 2002, said Baltimore’s crime is an economic problem that many cities struggle with. One in four residents in Baltimore lives under the poverty line, and the unemployment rate was 10 percent at the end of May.

A major factor is unemployment among youth and young adults, Morial said. “So when you take the illegal narcotics and trafficking in dope, and on top of that you have easy access to guns combined with high unemployment and very difficult economic conditions, it exacerbates the problem.”

In these cities with high rates of gun crime it is often black on black crime.  Those left behind by any urban renewal.  Some who have nothing but gangs and drugs to turn to.  So you have armed gang members on the streets.  Often of one racial group.  But police don’t dare be proactive.  Trying to ward off potential crime.  With programs like ‘stop and frisk’.  Because that will only strain relations between the police and the communities they’re trying to protect.  For these people have enough to deal with without turning their communities into police states.

Easy access to guns?  Yes.  That is a problem when criminals have easy access to guns.  But taking away the guns will not prevent people from becoming criminals.  If it did they would not be broadening their approach to reach at-risk youth.  Which is clearly an admission that it is not the guns.  But an environment that places youth at risk.  An environment created by anti-business economic policies.  Especially since President Obama entered office.  For his policies have given us the worst economic recovery since that following the Great Depression.  With Obamacare being at the top of the list of those anti-business policies.  With his energy policies a close second.  Causing businesses to stop hiring people.  The source of all these cities’ crime problems.

So who is responsible for this rise in gun crime?  Those who have put forward anti-business economic policies.  That have left our cities with high unemployment rates.  Giving these gangs a lot of recruits.  So it is President Obama who is responsible for the rise in gun crime that occurred during his administration.  Those who campaigned for him.  The mainstream media who protected him and dispensed his propaganda.  And those who elected him to office.  All share responsibility for the economic decline during the Obama presidency.  Which has caused this increase in gun crime.  For there is no better way to help at-risk unemployed people than by giving them jobs.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,