Speaking at the Dallas police memorial, President Obama declared that “We flood communities with so many guns that it is easier for a teenager to buy a Glock than get his hands on a computer or even a book.” Who is this “we” of whom the President speaks? I haven’t flooded my community with guns (they’re all high and dry in a big ass safe). Have you? More importantly, why does the President assume that teenagers in high-crime, low-income areas want computers or books? Or even know how to use them?
High schools in President Obama’s home town, for example, have an inflation-adjusted graduation rate of 66 percent. Assuming Chicago falls in line with national averages, 19 percent of those grads can’t read. Twenty-one percent of the Windy City grads who can read do so below a fifth grade level. These are not the book-deprived youth of which the President speaks. They’re book incapable and book oblivious youth.
As for teenage access to computers, if a teen can’t read, or can’t read above a fifth grade level, what good is a computer? It’s nothing more than a larger, less portable screen upon which they can play video games, engage in social media and watch bigger porn images.
Sorry. Rant over. Question now . . .
Is all this intellectual ignorance (including the President’s) informing the gang-related “gun violence” problem that should be vexing gun control advocates but isn’t because fixating on spree killers and terrorists plays better amongst the anti-gun rights Democratic base?
In other words, how can we expect to curb firearms-related gang violence when urban schools are churning out teenagers without any “advanced” job skills (e.g., reading) or understanding of the way the world outside their ‘hood works? If we fixed our schools or came up with an effective alternative, would “gun violence” decrease?