Well, actually it’s just one city with two examples of what seems to be an unsolvable problem.

In one case, parents of students at the now infamous Fenger High School are planning to boycott the school by keeping their children home to protest what they see as a lack of security against gang violence. In the other, 6 black college students from St. Louis are threatening action against a locally famous bar for refusing to allow them entry because of what they claim is racial discrimination.

At Fenger parents are claiming the Chicago Public School Board and the Chicago Police are not doing enough to keep their children safe. It was outside Fenger that honor roll student Derrion Albert was brutally beaten to death by gang members wielding 2 X 4’s. The fatal beating was caught on video by one of the many witnesses who stood by and watched. A number of Fenger students have been charged with the murder and police are continuing their investigation. This past week 5 more students were arrested for fighting inside Fenger. The brawls are part of the “turf war” between local gang members and those from a nearby housing project.

Chicago’s black community is rife with gang activity. Parents of students who just want an education have every right to be fearful, but what they hope to accomplish by this proposed boycott is unclear. The problem is with the gang bangers not the school. The only possible solution from a police standpoint is to have armed police officers roaming the hallways of the school. This would pull them off their duties outside the high school and would only serve to increase tensions and crime rates on the street. It would also most certainly cause local community activists to portray the police in school as an abuse of power and a violation of the student’s constitutional rights of free assembly. Chicago has already tried to institute action against groups of 2 or more gang members gathering on the street only to have it struck down as unconstitutional by the courts.

The incident at Mother’s bar in Chicago’s Gold Coast neighborhood involved 6 black college students who were not allowed inside by security because of their gang related attire. The 6 wore baggy pants and had their caps on backwards. While this is seen in the suburbs as a fashion statement it is understood in urban areas as a sign of gang affiliation. The manager of the bar was inclined to allow them inside until the 6 backed him into a corner with aggressive behavior and shouting. At that point any hope for resolution was lost and the students were forced to leave. They claim that they traded clothes with some white friends who were allowed entry and are making that their basis for claims of racial discrimination.

So police and private security can do nothing if you associate with gang bangers, dress like a gang banger and even admit to being one. But let gang bangers do what they do and then these same security and police forces are at fault for not doing enough to stop him. How do you win that?

Police can arrest the perpetrators of violence after the fact, but they are legally limited in how much they can proactively do to prevent it. The bulk of that responsibility for action lies within the black community. The community, led by their vocalists (they are far more vocal than active), is quick to complain about too much or too little action being taken, but the only action that will make a meaningful difference must come from within the community.

The greatest threat to a member of the black community is from another member of the black community. Not the police, not security guards and not racism.

Change the attitude in the community, or change the law so police have legal authority to be proactive, or get used to it.

Having just taken a quick glance through the online version of the latest news I am once again heartsick to see the senseless violence that man perpetrates against his fellow man. It isn’t necessarily limited to one race or one economic class, but it would be impossible to not notice that the majority of shootings and gun violence is in poor and minority urban areas.

Certainly the insane drug turf wars of the street gangs are the biggest reason for this violence. One gang member shooting a rival gang member, or attempting to shoot a rival and shooting an innocent bystander. Or the fairly common instance where a gang member shoots a non-member for whatever reason someone would randomly shoot someone.

All these shootings have Chicago’s Mayor Daley repeating his call for banning guns and suing legal gun shop owners simply for plying their trade. But if guns are the problem why don’t we see the same level of violence in wealthy suburban communities?

Many of my neighbors have guns. Both hand guns and rifles. I often walk the streets of my neighborhood and it has never even occurred to me that I might get shot. All the gun owners in my neighborhood have legally purchased their guns from the same gun dealers that the mayor wants to shut down. How come they are able to act responsible with the same lethal tool so many in the poorer neighborhoods use to end each other’s lives? If the gun itself were the problem wouldn’t it be the same problem everywhere?

For many years Chicago had a ban on owning a hand gun. It did absolutely no good. That’s not theory or conjecture, it’s a fact. We have gun laws up the whazoo and I can’t find any reliable data that proves these laws have saved even one life. Studies have shown increases and decreases in gun violence but they have yet to be able to tie any of these statistics to a gun law. It seems only logical to me that if someone is willing to commit the ultimate crime of murder it is remarkably unlikely that they will be worried about a gun possession violation.

Guns in the poor neighborhoods are passed around like currency. The same gun may be in the possession of 4 or 5 different people over the course of just a few months. Guns in wealthier neighborhoods are there for hunting or owned by collectors or kept for personal protection from gun toting bad guys. It would be almost unheard of for someone to pay a debt with a firearm in those areas.

To be sure there are instances of gun violence in the middle and upper class suburbs. Usually these are confined to domestic situations where one spouse does away with the other. Or like in the tragic case out of Casselberry Florida where a mother shot and murdered her son at a shooting range before taking her own life. The gun range and its owner will likely be accused of being responsible for this horrid event. I wouldn’t be surprised to see a law suit, which like most of these suits will be for millions of dollars but claimed to be so this type of neglect doesn’t happen to anybody else. The key is that it was not up to the range owner to keep the previously diagnosed mental patient out of the range. Her family knew her history and it was up to them to protect her from herself.

The question is, if the gun wasn’t there would the murder not occur? I think it has been sufficiently proven that once things get that out of control a baseball bat, kitchen knife, rat poison or the family station wagon can be just as deadly.

The preponderance of gun violence is high in the typically high crime areas with large gang populations, rampant illegal drug use and a complete lack of personal responsibility. Wealthy neighborhoods have the same number of guns, probably better more powerful guns, yet the gun violence is almost nil.

Maybe if politicians start looking at the real facts they can actually do something about the violence. Blaming the gun is like blaming the car for the drunk driver. It’s used as the tool but it’s not the cause.

And if the politicians won’t do it maybe the voters need to pull their head out of the sand and start questioning the cause and effects of the lack of personal responsibility. Data unequivocally shows that states that have instituted gun carry laws have seen a marked decrease in violent crime. That could not be possible if the gun was the problem.

Barack Obama has already shown his penchant for increasing federal gun laws and adding new restrictions to gun ownership. Perhaps he may want to take a walk through the streets of Washington DC where guns have been banned for many years and the gun violence rate is one of the highest per capita in the country.

The key to any gun law is that guns don’t vote, so rather than hold the person responsible you simply blame the tool.