The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
Gun City
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

One consequence of the omerta on publicly discussing differences in behavioral profiles across ethnicities is that people end up talking past each other when it comes to guns.

In rural areas where population densities are low and law enforcement response times are often slow, a firearm for self-defense carries a lot of upside and little downside. Gun ranges and the surrounding wilds provide ample opportunity for competence and control in their use and management. Populations tend to be older and whiter. An armed countryside is a peaceful countryside.

In dense urban areas where a squad car is never more than a couple blocks away and high population densities mean errant shots can lead to devastating collateral damage, gun ownership has less upside and more downside. The effective outsourcing of the management of violence to the police means those who do have guns are more likely to have obtained them illegally with aggressive intentions rather than legally with defensive or hunting ones. An armed urban core is Compton in 1988.

Everybody knows the cities are where the troublesome action is. From Harvard-Harris, where “laws related to better controlling guns are needed more”, by selected demographic characteristics:

So let rustics have their guns and urbanites their PD on speed dial, then? Ah, but there’s that omerta again.

When wealthy white city-dwelling liberals pretend deplorables in pickup trucks are the problem, they’ve trained themselves into PC-whipped virtue-signalling as the only way of allowing themselves to articulate the reasoning behind their desire to disarm locals who are too poor to ride around in limousines. The corporate media may only report on every twentieth mass shooting because it is one perpetrated by a suburban white kid, but most people know the score.

What’s the solution? As the country is currently constituted, there isn’t one. Devolve it to the states or, better yet, devolve the empire into several separate countries and let those new countries craft gun ownership policies that address concerns relevant to their populations.

 
• Category: Culture/Society, Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Guns, Polling 
Hide 77 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. In America guns are only legal where they aren’t needed. I don’t think it’s guns keeping rural whites safe. It’s that the only people around are rural whites.

    And the only thing gun legislation in cities has accomplished is making city dwelling whites defenseless.

    • Agree: Colin Wright
    • Replies: @216

    I don’t think it’s guns keeping rural whites safe
     
    It hasn't kept them safe from opium, nor from cultural subversion or economic decline.

    And the only thing gun legislation in cities has accomplished is making city dwelling whites defenseless.
     
    New York has been willing to violate numerous Constitutional principles in the pursuit of decreasing crime. The city was also highly gentrified, with its Great Migration black population partially replaced with new immigrants.

    Jurisdictionally, New York is the most restrictive because even purchasing a firearm requires begging and bribing the NYPD for permission. Even the rather restrictive San Francisco is pre-empted at the state level from imposing a more stringent local ban.

    The inconvenient truth for conservatives is that giving the police the arbitrary power to deny firearms would probably swiftly eliminate most suicide terrorism by mass shooters. Mexico has a large amount of crime, but firearms are either regulated by the military or by cartels; the cartels also offer an outlet for youth violence. Thus this kind of suicide terrorism is absent in Mexico, which otherwise is a good example against gun control.

    From a conspiratorial standpoint, I have no doubt that the intelligence agencies will continue winding up these terrorists until a ban is passed.
    , @Charlotte
    To a large extent, you are correct: it’s the demographics of white rural America that keep it as safe as it is. But you’re overlooking natural hazards such as poisonous snakes (the number one reason we used guns when I lived in the country), vicious dogs, rabid animals, and in certain areas, perhaps a hungry mountain lion or bear. Also, and most dangerous of all, there are occasional human predators who’ve noticed that law enforcement is unlikely to respond quickly to a call from a rural dwelling.

    If you’ve ever found yourself in a an iffy situation, alone in a rural area, you realize acutely that no one will be coming to save you: not quickly, at least. If there is any saving to be done in the meantime, you’ll have to do it yourself.
  2. What’s the solution? As the country is currently constituted, there isn’t one. Devolve it to the states or, better yet, devolve the empire into several separate countries and let those new countries craft gun ownership policies that address concerns relevant to their populations.

    Chiraq (sorry… Chicago) already has tough gun laws and the highest murder rate in the U.S. This practical example of Adam Smith’s Invisible Hand shows that guns = currency. The U.S. cannot protect its borders from smuggling. Does anyone believe that a sovereign Chiraqi city-state would do better?

    With 450-500MM privately owned, legal firearms in a nation of 300MM citizens, any attempt at confiscation is almost certain to be futile. Also, the proximity of urban, sub-urban, and rural populations make it impractical to have different rules by ‘human density’ even if polls seem to indicate that is desired.

    The effective outsourcing of the management of violence to the police means those who do have guns are more likely to have obtained them illegally with aggressive intentions

    What happens when the local government/police *become* the illegal aggressors? Allowing the government/police to disarm the citizenry has happened before. The 1930’s and 40’s immediately spring to mind as a worst case scenario.

    Let us hope our weapons are never needed — but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns.

    • Replies: @216

    Chiraq (sorry… Chicago) already has tough gun laws and the highest murder rate in the U.S.
     
    This is not true. Baltimore, St Louis and New Orleans are more violent.

    Does anyone believe that a sovereign Chiraqi city-state would do better?
     
    Yes, it probably would. If Cook was its own city-state like Singapore, it could dispense with any constitutional limitations on aggressive policing, and also could enforce a brutal affirmative action regime to ensure that whites were humiliated to the extent that blacks would trust the police. Presumably the Cook People's Republic would enforce border checkpoints, which it currently doesn't have. The CPR could also import Chinese surveiliance and the social credit system.

    https://i.imgflip.com/1r2zt2.jpg
    , @animalogic
    I believe you are correct. It is long past time to find "solutions" to any gun issues in the US.
    And given the almost unadulterated evil of US elites & governments, the idea of disarming the public is frankly appalling.
    , @dc.sunsets
    Chicago's gun laws are the same as the rest of IL's (except Chicago's pols have put gun stores in Crook County out of business...but that's otherwise meaningless.)

    IL has a "shall issue" license system for carrying a concealed handgun. Chicago has no legal means of preventing residents from obtaining a license, and tens of thousands have done so. Even Chicago's magazine-size limit laws are null and void where it intersects with handgun magazines. Once obtaining the license a resident of Chicago can carry a Glock 19 with a 15 (or heck, a 33) round magazine if he or she can conceal it.

    As AE notes, this is irrelevant to the "debate."

    Now I do disagree vehemently with the notion that police protection from violence can be ordered like a pizza, in the city or anywhere. The entire notion of armed self-defense rests on the fact that in the 1-in-10,000 chance you need protection, you need it immediately. Not in 5 minutes. Not in fifty seconds. RIGHT NOW, or it may very well be meaningless. If you are not next to your bodyguard, or you are not your own bodyguard, you are not guarded. Live with it. Live like you're unarmed and walking among predators...because while they're rare, they're there and you can't tell which of the animals is dangerous. The sad fact is that an adult male human is quite literally the most dangerous animal on Earth, more dangerous than a polar bear, an African Elephant, a Nile Crocodile, a Black Mamba snake. Only a man (or woman, but men are more aggressive) can kill at a distance.

    This is the paradox of armed self-defense. One spends $400+ on obtaining the CCL (concealed carry license), $200 to $600 on a common, quality firearm, $50 or more on a holster (after spending hundreds on others that didn't work out), and hundreds of dollars on ammunition with which to practice (because safely and effectively using a handgun is quite challenging and requires considerable time and effort, if not professional--expensive--instruction) and drags the 2 lbs of loaded gun around, all for an event that:
    1. The prudent CCL-holder is unusually cautious to avoid.
    2. Is thus very, very unlikely.
    3. Even if encountered, the gun may very well not be the best solution.

    Those who choose to carry a firearm legally face a mountain of obstacles and real-world disincentives, most of which have nothing to political clown action. For most people, it probably is better to simply "take your chances" while being in "avoid trouble mode." For those who insist on walking into harm's way, there's no hope anyway.

    As the SCOTUS has ruled, the police have no legal obligation to provide personal protection services to any individual. It's simply not their job, and they're not organized to do so. Theirs is a more "social" level of order-maintenance. They'll keep the chaos from going to full boil, but if you are the particular individual who draws the short straw and runs into a violent predator, you are ON YOUR OWN.
  3. My prized possession is my Desert Eagle. Painted gold-metallic, it is more for show than anything (I keep it unloaded, with the bullets in a box next to it). Hence, it is of limited use in a home-invasion situation, but that is not my primary use.

    Ah… but what a magnificent piece it is.

  4. @Futurethirdworlder
    In America guns are only legal where they aren't needed. I don't think it's guns keeping rural whites safe. It's that the only people around are rural whites.

    And the only thing gun legislation in cities has accomplished is making city dwelling whites defenseless.

    I don’t think it’s guns keeping rural whites safe

    It hasn’t kept them safe from opium, nor from cultural subversion or economic decline.

    And the only thing gun legislation in cities has accomplished is making city dwelling whites defenseless.

    New York has been willing to violate numerous Constitutional principles in the pursuit of decreasing crime. The city was also highly gentrified, with its Great Migration black population partially replaced with new immigrants.

    Jurisdictionally, New York is the most restrictive because even purchasing a firearm requires begging and bribing the NYPD for permission. Even the rather restrictive San Francisco is pre-empted at the state level from imposing a more stringent local ban.

    The inconvenient truth for conservatives is that giving the police the arbitrary power to deny firearms would probably swiftly eliminate most suicide terrorism by mass shooters. Mexico has a large amount of crime, but firearms are either regulated by the military or by cartels; the cartels also offer an outlet for youth violence. Thus this kind of suicide terrorism is absent in Mexico, which otherwise is a good example against gun control.

    From a conspiratorial standpoint, I have no doubt that the intelligence agencies will continue winding up these terrorists until a ban is passed.

    • Replies: @Joe Stalin
    "Jurisdictionally, New York is the most restrictive because even purchasing a firearm requires begging and bribing the NYPD for permission."

    Perhaps. But it's the Information Age and 2A activists haven't adapted. There's no reason why 2A activists can't form on a city block basis, or even on a large building basis. All you need is to find a fellow 2A or a person that wants to get a gun but has no support network against the communists that inhabit the Powers-that-be. The anti-gunners can be vector for spreading the "cancer" of gun ownership, to use the medical terminology the gun controllers love. I am reminded of the NJ boy who had a S&W .22LR AR clone and the the amazing hand-wringing that followed once his photo armed with such. You can hasten the process by doing a green screen of an appropriate background and showing the various firearms implements (standard capacity mags, ARs, AKs, etc) that NY has made illegal. You want to spread the moral panic of Gun Ownership against the Cosmopolitan world order.

    You ask, what would hold the club together while you get people to apply for gun ownership? The whole point is to become as George Bush states: 'One of the Thousand Points of Light.' Your club should try to emulate politically something like gunssavelife ( http://www.gunssavelife.com/ ) or others that make real noise.

    But what else can keep people interested while they wait for their gun? I think this video just using Airsoft could be the key to starting ordinary people down the road to gun ownership and skills optimization.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQDfwyUgtjg
  5. @A123

    What’s the solution? As the country is currently constituted, there isn’t one. Devolve it to the states or, better yet, devolve the empire into several separate countries and let those new countries craft gun ownership policies that address concerns relevant to their populations.
     
    Chiraq (sorry... Chicago) already has tough gun laws and the highest murder rate in the U.S. This practical example of Adam Smith's Invisible Hand shows that guns = currency. The U.S. cannot protect its borders from smuggling. Does anyone believe that a sovereign Chiraqi city-state would do better?

    With 450-500MM privately owned, legal firearms in a nation of 300MM citizens, any attempt at confiscation is almost certain to be futile. Also, the proximity of urban, sub-urban, and rural populations make it impractical to have different rules by 'human density' even if polls seem to indicate that is desired.

    The effective outsourcing of the management of violence to the police means those who do have guns are more likely to have obtained them illegally with aggressive intentions
     
    What happens when the local government/police *become* the illegal aggressors? Allowing the government/police to disarm the citizenry has happened before. The 1930's and 40's immediately spring to mind as a worst case scenario.

    Let us hope our weapons are never needed -- but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns.


    https://i.imgur.com/lAHFydR.jpg

    Chiraq (sorry… Chicago) already has tough gun laws and the highest murder rate in the U.S.

    This is not true. Baltimore, St Louis and New Orleans are more violent.

    Does anyone believe that a sovereign Chiraqi city-state would do better?

    Yes, it probably would. If Cook was its own city-state like Singapore, it could dispense with any constitutional limitations on aggressive policing, and also could enforce a brutal affirmative action regime to ensure that whites were humiliated to the extent that blacks would trust the police. Presumably the Cook People’s Republic would enforce border checkpoints, which it currently doesn’t have. The CPR could also import Chinese surveiliance and the social credit system.

  6. Another aspect worth repeating:

    It’s particularly schools that attract the most intense reaction. Suicide terrorism against adults at work is actually more common.

    Theoretically, putting an armed officer at a school is the way to deter attacks, as the terrorist is trying to achieve the maximum number of deaths. Being killed/disabled before an attack means no noteriety. This faces leftist opposition, and means at least 100k more cops nationwide. Cons that promote arming staff are barking up the wrong tree, this has no pull outside of certain rural areas.

    Conversely, university campuses are increasingly an armed camp of private police officers.

    There’s also a potent intersectional angle here: The fusion of “incel rage” and white supremacy. BLM loves to trump up the absence “black mass shooters” and occassionally glorifies Dorner/Dallas as they supposedly “didn’t target civilians”. The majority of “Mass shooters” are actually gangland “drive-bys”.

    Also, almost every other First World nation chose to annihilate their citizens’ rights when faced with this choice. To those on the center-left that express “metric system rage”, this is also potent.

    • Replies: @prime noticer
    "It’s particularly schools that attract the most intense reaction."

    the main reason these school shootings are in suburban schools and almost never happen in the inner city is because the big african high schools were turned into locked down prisons 30 years ago, with metal detectors, fences, and police as standard.

    this is something NOBODY ever talks about, even in HBD world. urban high schools were converted into no shooting zones decades ago. otherwise yeah, brothers would be coming to school shooting each other. that's actually why they don't anymore. because they did 35 years ago.

    "Oh it's the white loser nerd who comes to school with a gun." well, it wasn't back when this started. they just shut down the Jamals and Dontrells a while ago. suburban school shooting are still so rare, and there's so many of them (literally 10,000 suburban high schools) that's it not practical to turn all of them into locked down prisons like Morgan Freeman did in Lean On Me.

    , @The Alarmist

    It’s particularly schools that attract the most intense reaction.
     
    The schools have lots of problems besides occasional gun violence.

    It's time to seriously consider banning schools.
  7. interesting trend that we’ve seen before: africans don’t want gun control in the city (where they live), but they’re the most likely to want gun control in the suburbs, where YT lives. the racial results of the poll are undeniable, although not new. we’ve known africans felt this way for a while.

    they seem to live in constant fear that as soon as they step out of the inner city and into the suburbs, some dentist is going to blow them away. when in reality, they’re by far most likely to be shot by one of their own guys when they’re on 5th and Washington.

    they want YT suburbanite disarmed, maybe so it’s safer for them to break the law there, but they don’t mind getting capped by another brother in the city. what they really don’t want is YT to be able to shoot back.

    we’ve seen productive africans with no criminal record state this kind of thing almost openly, because everybody has a family, and african families have criminals. so maybe one guy doesn’t expect to get shot by YT, but he knows cousin Andre could get shot if YT is armed.

    • Replies: @Ris_Eruwaedhiel
    Criminality is so pervasive among Blacks that even a law-abiding Black doesn't want cousin Andre get shot while mugging a YT dentist in Whitelandia.
    , @Feryl

    interesting trend that we’ve seen before: africans don’t want gun control in the city (where they live), but they’re the most likely to want gun control in the suburbs, where YT lives. the racial results of the poll are undeniable, although not new. we’ve known africans felt this way for a while.
     
    Blacks are nervous that whites will, one day, take matters into their hands again, and stop relying on a police state to deal with unruly blacks. That's how it was before the Civil Rights era, and who's to say we can't go back to that system?

    Also, whether it's white citizens or the nominally "white" law enforcement system, blacks really don't like the idea of any non-African entity telling them how to behave, or even just getting in their way and slowing them down. This is what we have to show for the last 70 years of "progress" (white naivete being taken advantage of).
  8. @216
    Another aspect worth repeating:

    It's particularly schools that attract the most intense reaction. Suicide terrorism against adults at work is actually more common.

    Theoretically, putting an armed officer at a school is the way to deter attacks, as the terrorist is trying to achieve the maximum number of deaths. Being killed/disabled before an attack means no noteriety. This faces leftist opposition, and means at least 100k more cops nationwide. Cons that promote arming staff are barking up the wrong tree, this has no pull outside of certain rural areas.

    Conversely, university campuses are increasingly an armed camp of private police officers.

    There's also a potent intersectional angle here: The fusion of "incel rage" and white supremacy. BLM loves to trump up the absence "black mass shooters" and occassionally glorifies Dorner/Dallas as they supposedly "didn't target civilians". The majority of "Mass shooters" are actually gangland "drive-bys".

    Also, almost every other First World nation chose to annihilate their citizens' rights when faced with this choice. To those on the center-left that express "metric system rage", this is also potent.

    “It’s particularly schools that attract the most intense reaction.”

    the main reason these school shootings are in suburban schools and almost never happen in the inner city is because the big african high schools were turned into locked down prisons 30 years ago, with metal detectors, fences, and police as standard.

    this is something NOBODY ever talks about, even in HBD world. urban high schools were converted into no shooting zones decades ago. otherwise yeah, brothers would be coming to school shooting each other. that’s actually why they don’t anymore. because they did 35 years ago.

    “Oh it’s the white loser nerd who comes to school with a gun.” well, it wasn’t back when this started. they just shut down the Jamals and Dontrells a while ago. suburban school shooting are still so rare, and there’s so many of them (literally 10,000 suburban high schools) that’s it not practical to turn all of them into locked down prisons like Morgan Freeman did in Lean On Me.

    • Agree: Ash Williams
    • Replies: @Feryl

    the main reason these school shootings are in suburban schools and almost never happen in the inner city is because the big african high schools were turned into locked down prisons 30 years ago, with metal detectors, fences, and police as standard.

    this is something NOBODY ever talks about, even in HBD world. urban high schools were converted into no shooting zones decades ago. otherwise yeah, brothers would be coming to school shooting each other. that’s actually why they don’t anymore. because they did 35 years ago.
     
    In lieu of swiftly "correcting" black delinquents to send a message to possible trouble makers that being a reprobate wasn't worth it (as was done before circa 1950), we instead have to rely on police state measures of surveillance and control, where we expect "inner city youth" to be a menace who must be arrested, detained, and incarcerated in large numbers. This is what happens when police are not permitted to give the night-stick to purse snatchers (before the 1950's, criminals including black ones feared immediate physical retribution from both police and white civilians).

    Logistically, and public safety wise, I think that it's pretty objectively superior to have the occasional street beating of criminals by police and concerned citizens instead of detaining and imprisoning millions of them. Instead of immediate (and often effective) retribution, we now pay kajillions of dollars to law enf., the judiciary, and the penal system to confiscate guns, spy on people, and incarcerate massive numbers of people.

    That being said, the current police state is so stringent that Millennials, more so than the generations who were young in the 70's and 80's, have to a large extent opted out of committing more crime. We saw so many Boomers and X-ers get caught up in the system, that we don't want to make the same mistakes they did.
  9. I don’t think it’s the guns…

    Some journalist or something, made reports on the Taliban, terrorists, armed groups – the tricky cool stuff y’know, once went touring around rural Serbia. He said – “I have never seen more weapons in my entire life.” Heck, people used to buy weapons in bulk – just come up and say “give me 100kg of guns”.

    Yet, mysteriously enough… We have much lower gun violence rates. I mean we do have tons of police, but still. Switzerland is similar, I heard, though apparently ammo is harder to come by.

    On the other hand, if you have legal guns, the bureaucracy is atrocious. Private security people need to get a “usage permit” every fucking day. Yes – daily gun permits.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    I don’t think it’s the guns…
     
    It ain't the ♣'s, it's the ♠'s.
  10. The corporate media may only report on every twentieth mass shooting because it is one perpetrated by a suburban white kid, but most people know the score.

    What’s the solution?

    Open season on the Corporate Media.

  11. @216
    Another aspect worth repeating:

    It's particularly schools that attract the most intense reaction. Suicide terrorism against adults at work is actually more common.

    Theoretically, putting an armed officer at a school is the way to deter attacks, as the terrorist is trying to achieve the maximum number of deaths. Being killed/disabled before an attack means no noteriety. This faces leftist opposition, and means at least 100k more cops nationwide. Cons that promote arming staff are barking up the wrong tree, this has no pull outside of certain rural areas.

    Conversely, university campuses are increasingly an armed camp of private police officers.

    There's also a potent intersectional angle here: The fusion of "incel rage" and white supremacy. BLM loves to trump up the absence "black mass shooters" and occassionally glorifies Dorner/Dallas as they supposedly "didn't target civilians". The majority of "Mass shooters" are actually gangland "drive-bys".

    Also, almost every other First World nation chose to annihilate their citizens' rights when faced with this choice. To those on the center-left that express "metric system rage", this is also potent.

    It’s particularly schools that attract the most intense reaction.

    The schools have lots of problems besides occasional gun violence.

    It’s time to seriously consider banning schools.

    • Agree: Cloudbuster
    • LOL: animalogic
  12. @Svevlad
    I don't think it's the guns...

    Some journalist or something, made reports on the Taliban, terrorists, armed groups - the tricky cool stuff y'know, once went touring around rural Serbia. He said - "I have never seen more weapons in my entire life." Heck, people used to buy weapons in bulk - just come up and say "give me 100kg of guns".

    Yet, mysteriously enough... We have much lower gun violence rates. I mean we do have tons of police, but still. Switzerland is similar, I heard, though apparently ammo is harder to come by.

    On the other hand, if you have legal guns, the bureaucracy is atrocious. Private security people need to get a "usage permit" every fucking day. Yes - daily gun permits.

    I don’t think it’s the guns…

    It ain’t the ♣’s, it’s the ♠’s.

    • LOL: The Alarmist
    • Replies: @The Alarmist
    That says it all in ♠️s!
  13. @Reg Cæsar

    I don’t think it’s the guns…
     
    It ain't the ♣'s, it's the ♠'s.

    That says it all in ♠️s!

  14. What’s the solution? As the country is currently constituted, there isn’t one. Devolve it to the states or, better yet, devolve the empire into several separate countries and let those new countries craft gun ownership policies that address concerns relevant to their populations.

    Are you serious? The Constitution has spoken on this point. Letting the federal government or states ‘craft gun ownership policies’ is a blatant violation of the Bill Of Rights.

    Most of your post is plain common sense (as usual). But you’re off the mark here.

    Separate countries, yes, I’d settle for.

  15. @A123

    What’s the solution? As the country is currently constituted, there isn’t one. Devolve it to the states or, better yet, devolve the empire into several separate countries and let those new countries craft gun ownership policies that address concerns relevant to their populations.
     
    Chiraq (sorry... Chicago) already has tough gun laws and the highest murder rate in the U.S. This practical example of Adam Smith's Invisible Hand shows that guns = currency. The U.S. cannot protect its borders from smuggling. Does anyone believe that a sovereign Chiraqi city-state would do better?

    With 450-500MM privately owned, legal firearms in a nation of 300MM citizens, any attempt at confiscation is almost certain to be futile. Also, the proximity of urban, sub-urban, and rural populations make it impractical to have different rules by 'human density' even if polls seem to indicate that is desired.

    The effective outsourcing of the management of violence to the police means those who do have guns are more likely to have obtained them illegally with aggressive intentions
     
    What happens when the local government/police *become* the illegal aggressors? Allowing the government/police to disarm the citizenry has happened before. The 1930's and 40's immediately spring to mind as a worst case scenario.

    Let us hope our weapons are never needed -- but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns.


    https://i.imgur.com/lAHFydR.jpg

    I believe you are correct. It is long past time to find “solutions” to any gun issues in the US.
    And given the almost unadulterated evil of US elites & governments, the idea of disarming the public is frankly appalling.

    • Agree: Anonymousse
  16. In dense urban areas where a squad car is never more than a couple blocks away and high population densities mean errant shots can lead to devastating collateral damage, gun ownership has less upside and more downside.

    Setting aside blacks and Hispanics for the moment…

    My primary residence is in a dense suburban area. It has a high gun ownership rate with virtually zero “gun” crime (and negligible violent crime rates). The population is 80% white, 15% Asian.

    My secondary residence is in highly rural area. It has average crime rates (and high rates of substance abuse). The population is nearly 100% white.

    I’m more concerned about getting shot accidentally during hunting season (or by poachers) in the latter than I am of any kind of violence, gun-related or otherwise, in the former… which is to say, density and police presence do not matter. People do.

    • Agree: Aft
    • Replies: @Athletic and Whitesplosive

    which is to say, density and police presence do not matter. People do.
     
    Well what you're saying is "true", this statement has as much depth as other "true" statements like 'it's not the dog it's the owner', 'crime is about character, not skin colour', and 'guns don't kill people, people do'. That is, they're superficially correct, but wrong whenever extended beyond their most strictly literal interpretation.

    If every pitbull were perfectly trained and controlled, there would probably be very few attacks; and yet this is just obscurantism to distract from the fact that pits are extremely aggressive, hard to train or restrain, and they attract stupid and irresponsible owners who are the least likely to want or be able to train them properly.

    So yes, the character of the people matters more, but if you distributed your (relatively affluent, I can assume?) suburb across the countryside there would likely be even more marginal criminality. Likewise, cramming your less affluent country folk into a dense suburb would intensify their criminality. But you're implicitly correct in that it cirlces back to the people since the country attracts white cityot refugees and is mainly composed of legacy rural whites; high density city cores attract largely non-white immigrants and are composed of immigrants and legacy africans. But even this is still a long way from 'doesn't matter', that's like saying mosquitoes matter but not standing water.
  17. Right, it’s no accident that all ‘sensible’ gun control measures would fall squarely on already law-abiding and mostly white citizens. Stuff like massive criminal penalties for the possession of illegal firearms or use in crime get less attention, because it would be Democrats advocating for laws that would lock up a lot of other Democrats (or at least their sons and grandsons). No one on the left wants to call attention to the fact that their urban strongholds are seeded with a wildly disproportionate share of homicidal residents and tend to be very low-trust communities. It would also destroy the premise of BLM and other lefty social movements that claim that repression by racists is the biggest problem/danger to POCs in America.

    The left’s mania for disarming law-abiding citizens coupled with its barely veiled contempt for whites is probably turning even more people into 2nd amendment absolutists than anything the NRA could ever concoct. A less diverse, high-trust society would be more open to restrictions on gun ownership – indeed, just about everything the left claims it wants like a stronger social safety net are only possible in high-trust cultures, but in its zeal to kneecap the majority through mass immigration and identity politics they left is just ensuring common ground cannot be found. Which is probably the point, since they are more interested in power than the common good.

    • Agree: Rosie
    • Replies: @Rosie

    The left’s mania for disarming law-abiding citizens coupled with its barely veiled contempt for whites is probably turning even more people into 2nd amendment absolutists than anything the NRA could ever concoct.
     
    I get that liberals don't care about gun rights. What I don't understand is how they fail to recognize that all the other amendments, which they at least claim to care about, are meaningless if only the government has guns.
  18. I know from personal experience about guns on the farm, guns in the home, guns in the hood and guns in the military. The people calling for “gun control” know nothing about guns and even less about control. These are the same people who thought they could “control” marijuana. They know nothing about everyday commerce in guns. They know nothing about police protection or the lack thereof. Their ignorance is only possible because they have lived protected lives.

    A contented idiot can be a good friend and neighbor. An idiot with a cause bears watching.

  19. dc.sunsets [AKA "Astonished"] says:
    @A123

    What’s the solution? As the country is currently constituted, there isn’t one. Devolve it to the states or, better yet, devolve the empire into several separate countries and let those new countries craft gun ownership policies that address concerns relevant to their populations.
     
    Chiraq (sorry... Chicago) already has tough gun laws and the highest murder rate in the U.S. This practical example of Adam Smith's Invisible Hand shows that guns = currency. The U.S. cannot protect its borders from smuggling. Does anyone believe that a sovereign Chiraqi city-state would do better?

    With 450-500MM privately owned, legal firearms in a nation of 300MM citizens, any attempt at confiscation is almost certain to be futile. Also, the proximity of urban, sub-urban, and rural populations make it impractical to have different rules by 'human density' even if polls seem to indicate that is desired.

    The effective outsourcing of the management of violence to the police means those who do have guns are more likely to have obtained them illegally with aggressive intentions
     
    What happens when the local government/police *become* the illegal aggressors? Allowing the government/police to disarm the citizenry has happened before. The 1930's and 40's immediately spring to mind as a worst case scenario.

    Let us hope our weapons are never needed -- but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns.


    https://i.imgur.com/lAHFydR.jpg

    Chicago’s gun laws are the same as the rest of IL’s (except Chicago’s pols have put gun stores in Crook County out of business…but that’s otherwise meaningless.)

    IL has a “shall issue” license system for carrying a concealed handgun. Chicago has no legal means of preventing residents from obtaining a license, and tens of thousands have done so. Even Chicago’s magazine-size limit laws are null and void where it intersects with handgun magazines. Once obtaining the license a resident of Chicago can carry a Glock 19 with a 15 (or heck, a 33) round magazine if he or she can conceal it.

    As AE notes, this is irrelevant to the “debate.”

    Now I do disagree vehemently with the notion that police protection from violence can be ordered like a pizza, in the city or anywhere. The entire notion of armed self-defense rests on the fact that in the 1-in-10,000 chance you need protection, you need it immediately. Not in 5 minutes. Not in fifty seconds. RIGHT NOW, or it may very well be meaningless. If you are not next to your bodyguard, or you are not your own bodyguard, you are not guarded. Live with it. Live like you’re unarmed and walking among predators…because while they’re rare, they’re there and you can’t tell which of the animals is dangerous. The sad fact is that an adult male human is quite literally the most dangerous animal on Earth, more dangerous than a polar bear, an African Elephant, a Nile Crocodile, a Black Mamba snake. Only a man (or woman, but men are more aggressive) can kill at a distance.

    This is the paradox of armed self-defense. One spends $400+ on obtaining the CCL (concealed carry license), $200 to $600 on a common, quality firearm, $50 or more on a holster (after spending hundreds on others that didn’t work out), and hundreds of dollars on ammunition with which to practice (because safely and effectively using a handgun is quite challenging and requires considerable time and effort, if not professional–expensive–instruction) and drags the 2 lbs of loaded gun around, all for an event that:
    1. The prudent CCL-holder is unusually cautious to avoid.
    2. Is thus very, very unlikely.
    3. Even if encountered, the gun may very well not be the best solution.

    Those who choose to carry a firearm legally face a mountain of obstacles and real-world disincentives, most of which have nothing to political clown action. For most people, it probably is better to simply “take your chances” while being in “avoid trouble mode.” For those who insist on walking into harm’s way, there’s no hope anyway.

    As the SCOTUS has ruled, the police have no legal obligation to provide personal protection services to any individual. It’s simply not their job, and they’re not organized to do so. Theirs is a more “social” level of order-maintenance. They’ll keep the chaos from going to full boil, but if you are the particular individual who draws the short straw and runs into a violent predator, you are ON YOUR OWN.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Only a man (or woman, but men are more aggressive) can kill at a distance.
     
    I agree with much of your comment, but would like to clarify that a huge majority of civilian armed encounters takes place within a few feet and, where firearms are involved, the discharged round count is very low (2-3 I think).

    My self-defense mantra for most people is “avoid, evade, escape, and fight,” in that order of priority.
    , @anarchyst
    CPL holders are MORE proficient with weaponry than almost all police officers. Police officers typically "qualify" with their service weapons once a year, and see weapons training as a nuisance to be tolerated.

    As CPL holders have NO "qualified immunity" protections, they are MORE careful to avoid situations that could mean "trouble" for them.

    Changes in “immunity” laws are needed. Concealed weapons permit holders should be covered under the same immunity from prosecution laws that police officers and other public officials enjoy.

    An armed citizen should be able to defend his own life and the life of others, but without changes in immunity laws, concealed weapons permit holders are rightfully reluctant to act.

    Even the present “stand your ground” concept is not enough, as prosecutors still can and do go after those non-police citizens who “feared for their lives”.

    What I would like to see is CPL holders have the SAME immunity that police and prosecutor have.

    THAT, in itself, would level the “playing field”, and would work, putting those who would do harm on notice that there are armed citizens who WILL “stop the threat”. Look for prosecutors and police to oppose such a move…but one can hope…
    , @Achmed E. Newman
    There's another aspect that you didn't discuss there, Astonished. That is, brandishing a gun often is enough to get the bad sorts to leave you alone. All the instances in which a concealed gun carrier (I'm not gonna use some government acronym, because as far as I'm concerned, you don't need any piece of paper) pulls it out of his pocket or holster, or even just puts his hand on the grips, and would-be perps leave him alone do not make the news.

    Those instances don't get recorded at all, because who would want to make a thing about it. The cops are not your friends in this respect.

    I am nothing if not a curmudgeon, but if there is one thing getting better in the US as of late, it's the Concealed Carry laws. I've put this map up a few times, but here you go again (look at the greens - the States that abide by the Constitution - in THIS respect):

    https://www.peakstupidity.com/images/CCC.gif

    Constitutional Carry went from just Vermont (This is Bernie Country!) in 1986 to 13 States in 2017.
    , @Reg Cæsar

    Once obtaining the license a resident of Chicago can carry a Glock 19 with a 15 (or heck, a 33) round magazine if he or she can conceal it.
     
    Some of those Chicago shes can conceal larger weapons just in their fat rolls.

    Here's a "Florida woman" case:


    http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/florida/cops-find-vagina-knife-431095
  20. It makes no difference whether it is Twinkie, Rosie or countless others, it’s: race, race, race.

    All of us know about race, race, race. What we need to know more about is solutions, solutions, solutions.

    • Replies: @SunBakedSuburb
    "What we need to know more about is solutions"

    We can start by acknowledging that multi-racial societies breed discontent. This is a good forum for solutions. You're an intelligent guy (or gal): Let's hear yours.
  21. @dc.sunsets
    Chicago's gun laws are the same as the rest of IL's (except Chicago's pols have put gun stores in Crook County out of business...but that's otherwise meaningless.)

    IL has a "shall issue" license system for carrying a concealed handgun. Chicago has no legal means of preventing residents from obtaining a license, and tens of thousands have done so. Even Chicago's magazine-size limit laws are null and void where it intersects with handgun magazines. Once obtaining the license a resident of Chicago can carry a Glock 19 with a 15 (or heck, a 33) round magazine if he or she can conceal it.

    As AE notes, this is irrelevant to the "debate."

    Now I do disagree vehemently with the notion that police protection from violence can be ordered like a pizza, in the city or anywhere. The entire notion of armed self-defense rests on the fact that in the 1-in-10,000 chance you need protection, you need it immediately. Not in 5 minutes. Not in fifty seconds. RIGHT NOW, or it may very well be meaningless. If you are not next to your bodyguard, or you are not your own bodyguard, you are not guarded. Live with it. Live like you're unarmed and walking among predators...because while they're rare, they're there and you can't tell which of the animals is dangerous. The sad fact is that an adult male human is quite literally the most dangerous animal on Earth, more dangerous than a polar bear, an African Elephant, a Nile Crocodile, a Black Mamba snake. Only a man (or woman, but men are more aggressive) can kill at a distance.

    This is the paradox of armed self-defense. One spends $400+ on obtaining the CCL (concealed carry license), $200 to $600 on a common, quality firearm, $50 or more on a holster (after spending hundreds on others that didn't work out), and hundreds of dollars on ammunition with which to practice (because safely and effectively using a handgun is quite challenging and requires considerable time and effort, if not professional--expensive--instruction) and drags the 2 lbs of loaded gun around, all for an event that:
    1. The prudent CCL-holder is unusually cautious to avoid.
    2. Is thus very, very unlikely.
    3. Even if encountered, the gun may very well not be the best solution.

    Those who choose to carry a firearm legally face a mountain of obstacles and real-world disincentives, most of which have nothing to political clown action. For most people, it probably is better to simply "take your chances" while being in "avoid trouble mode." For those who insist on walking into harm's way, there's no hope anyway.

    As the SCOTUS has ruled, the police have no legal obligation to provide personal protection services to any individual. It's simply not their job, and they're not organized to do so. Theirs is a more "social" level of order-maintenance. They'll keep the chaos from going to full boil, but if you are the particular individual who draws the short straw and runs into a violent predator, you are ON YOUR OWN.

    Only a man (or woman, but men are more aggressive) can kill at a distance.

    I agree with much of your comment, but would like to clarify that a huge majority of civilian armed encounters takes place within a few feet and, where firearms are involved, the discharged round count is very low (2-3 I think).

    My self-defense mantra for most people is “avoid, evade, escape, and fight,” in that order of priority.

  22. @dc.sunsets
    Chicago's gun laws are the same as the rest of IL's (except Chicago's pols have put gun stores in Crook County out of business...but that's otherwise meaningless.)

    IL has a "shall issue" license system for carrying a concealed handgun. Chicago has no legal means of preventing residents from obtaining a license, and tens of thousands have done so. Even Chicago's magazine-size limit laws are null and void where it intersects with handgun magazines. Once obtaining the license a resident of Chicago can carry a Glock 19 with a 15 (or heck, a 33) round magazine if he or she can conceal it.

    As AE notes, this is irrelevant to the "debate."

    Now I do disagree vehemently with the notion that police protection from violence can be ordered like a pizza, in the city or anywhere. The entire notion of armed self-defense rests on the fact that in the 1-in-10,000 chance you need protection, you need it immediately. Not in 5 minutes. Not in fifty seconds. RIGHT NOW, or it may very well be meaningless. If you are not next to your bodyguard, or you are not your own bodyguard, you are not guarded. Live with it. Live like you're unarmed and walking among predators...because while they're rare, they're there and you can't tell which of the animals is dangerous. The sad fact is that an adult male human is quite literally the most dangerous animal on Earth, more dangerous than a polar bear, an African Elephant, a Nile Crocodile, a Black Mamba snake. Only a man (or woman, but men are more aggressive) can kill at a distance.

    This is the paradox of armed self-defense. One spends $400+ on obtaining the CCL (concealed carry license), $200 to $600 on a common, quality firearm, $50 or more on a holster (after spending hundreds on others that didn't work out), and hundreds of dollars on ammunition with which to practice (because safely and effectively using a handgun is quite challenging and requires considerable time and effort, if not professional--expensive--instruction) and drags the 2 lbs of loaded gun around, all for an event that:
    1. The prudent CCL-holder is unusually cautious to avoid.
    2. Is thus very, very unlikely.
    3. Even if encountered, the gun may very well not be the best solution.

    Those who choose to carry a firearm legally face a mountain of obstacles and real-world disincentives, most of which have nothing to political clown action. For most people, it probably is better to simply "take your chances" while being in "avoid trouble mode." For those who insist on walking into harm's way, there's no hope anyway.

    As the SCOTUS has ruled, the police have no legal obligation to provide personal protection services to any individual. It's simply not their job, and they're not organized to do so. Theirs is a more "social" level of order-maintenance. They'll keep the chaos from going to full boil, but if you are the particular individual who draws the short straw and runs into a violent predator, you are ON YOUR OWN.

    CPL holders are MORE proficient with weaponry than almost all police officers. Police officers typically “qualify” with their service weapons once a year, and see weapons training as a nuisance to be tolerated.

    As CPL holders have NO “qualified immunity” protections, they are MORE careful to avoid situations that could mean “trouble” for them.

    Changes in “immunity” laws are needed. Concealed weapons permit holders should be covered under the same immunity from prosecution laws that police officers and other public officials enjoy.

    An armed citizen should be able to defend his own life and the life of others, but without changes in immunity laws, concealed weapons permit holders are rightfully reluctant to act.

    Even the present “stand your ground” concept is not enough, as prosecutors still can and do go after those non-police citizens who “feared for their lives”.

    What I would like to see is CPL holders have the SAME immunity that police and prosecutor have.

    THAT, in itself, would level the “playing field”, and would work, putting those who would do harm on notice that there are armed citizens who WILL “stop the threat”. Look for prosecutors and police to oppose such a move…but one can hope…

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    Great comment, Anarchyst! I was just writing yesterday (in this post) that we wouldn't even be discussing this 9/11 attack every year if Americans hadn't already been getting disarmed for years upon boarding airliners.

    You are absolutely right that the CPL holders (or non-holders) are much more responsible than cops.

    1) They have a lot more to lose by being rash. A cop will get a paid suspension for something that'll get a regular American 10 years in prison.

    2) Regular Americans practice (being "regulated", as in "in practice" per US Constitution Amend. II). Do you remember the cops taking 9 or 11 shots at a guy in downtown NY City and missing him from say 5 yards? They missed the "perp" - not sure about all the bystanders.
  23. @Twinkie

    In dense urban areas where a squad car is never more than a couple blocks away and high population densities mean errant shots can lead to devastating collateral damage, gun ownership has less upside and more downside.
     
    Setting aside blacks and Hispanics for the moment...

    My primary residence is in a dense suburban area. It has a high gun ownership rate with virtually zero “gun” crime (and negligible violent crime rates). The population is 80% white, 15% Asian.

    My secondary residence is in highly rural area. It has average crime rates (and high rates of substance abuse). The population is nearly 100% white.

    I’m more concerned about getting shot accidentally during hunting season (or by poachers) in the latter than I am of any kind of violence, gun-related or otherwise, in the former... which is to say, density and police presence do not matter. People do.

    which is to say, density and police presence do not matter. People do.

    Well what you’re saying is “true”, this statement has as much depth as other “true” statements like ‘it’s not the dog it’s the owner’, ‘crime is about character, not skin colour’, and ‘guns don’t kill people, people do’. That is, they’re superficially correct, but wrong whenever extended beyond their most strictly literal interpretation.

    If every pitbull were perfectly trained and controlled, there would probably be very few attacks; and yet this is just obscurantism to distract from the fact that pits are extremely aggressive, hard to train or restrain, and they attract stupid and irresponsible owners who are the least likely to want or be able to train them properly.

    So yes, the character of the people matters more, but if you distributed your (relatively affluent, I can assume?) suburb across the countryside there would likely be even more marginal criminality. Likewise, cramming your less affluent country folk into a dense suburb would intensify their criminality. But you’re implicitly correct in that it cirlces back to the people since the country attracts white cityot refugees and is mainly composed of legacy rural whites; high density city cores attract largely non-white immigrants and are composed of immigrants and legacy africans. But even this is still a long way from ‘doesn’t matter’, that’s like saying mosquitoes matter but not standing water.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    the fact that pits are extremely aggressive, hard to train or restrain
     
    Those are far from facts.

    they attract stupid and irresponsible owners who are the least likely to want or be able to train them properly.
     
    Yes on this.

    Dogs have a relatively short breeding cycle, are highly social and people-influenced, and can be selectively bred easily. You can turn any large breed into dangerous dogs in a short period of time.

    But even this is still a long way from ‘doesn’t matter’, that’s like saying mosquitoes matter but not standing water.
     
    Doesn’t matter was a shorthand for “of very low coefficient.” You can cram a million Japanese into a tiny area and let them have guns, and you are not going to have much in the way of gun crimes. Put blacks (and to a lesser extent Hispanics) into a nice suburb or a rural area, gun crimes will spike. I am definitely NOT one of those “race is everything” people, but in the case of violent crime rates, race has very high correlations, and that’s the case (broadly) outside the United States as well. And within the same race, SES seems to matter substantially.
  24. Whites need guns because blacks are more muscular and more aggressive.

    This is how blacks feel about whites.

    https://www.bitchute.com/video/RaNX4vLgwBvG/

    • Replies: @LoutishAngloQuebecker
    All the negros are very poor fighters in that video. If it wasn't 12 v 1 the white guy might of has a chance.

    But, being in Minneapolish chances are he's a shitlib anyways. Hopefully that smartened him up.
    , @Feryl

    Whites need guns because blacks are more muscular and more aggressive.
     
    So, that's why there are no white offensive line-men, strong-men, body builders, heavy weight boxers, and wrestlers.

    News flash: Northern Europeans are, on average, as physically large as American blacks. Because so many white doofuses only understand blacks through sports, then well I suppose it's logical to assume that blacks are taller, wider, and stronger than American whites.

    Blacks have more fast twitch muscle fibers, which translates to blacks being able to sprint short distances faster than whites. It also translates to non-tired blacks being able to punch harder than whites. But the trade-off is that blacks tire faster than whites, something that's quite important in boxing and other combat sports. American whites dominate collegiate wrestling and do pretty well in MMA. Fewer and fewer American whites have boxed since, what, the 1950's? But Eastern European whites have done quite well in international boxing since the dissolution of the Soviet Union (leading to complaints from cucked Western journalists that boxing has gotten more "boring").

    Why do so many nerdy Western whites automatically assume that American blacks are athletic ubermensch? If we define athleticism as "runs in a straight line for 100 yrds at a high rate of speed", then sure, I suppose blacks are gifted athletes. However, in terms of size, strength, speed, stamina, hand-eye coordination etc. I think you could make a valid argument that Northern Europeans are the best all around athletes (notably, West Africans sprint fast, East African do long distance running well, while Europeans do the mid-distance running very well; whites are the jack of all trades athletes).

    One thing that America is going to regret is spoiling it's once admirable ethnic mixture of fine athleticism; American whites, American blacks, and American Indians (e.g. America of pre-1970) are all fairly large and athletic ethnic groups. Asians, Central American natives, mestizos, and other such New Americans are all going to bring down the average level of size and athleticism within America.

    Lastly, whites take longer to physically develop than blacks. So a lot of well-built 35 year old white guys were quite a bit smaller when they were in high school. This hurts them relative to black athletes; one reason coaches started to favor black recruits is because they physically mature at least 25% faster than whites.
    , @MikeatMikedotMike
    "Whites need guns because blacks are more muscular and more aggressive."

    You keep bouncing around this website pushing the myth of superior negro strength, as well as confusing the definition of aggression with poor impulse control. You should stop.
  25. @Athletic and Whitesplosive

    which is to say, density and police presence do not matter. People do.
     
    Well what you're saying is "true", this statement has as much depth as other "true" statements like 'it's not the dog it's the owner', 'crime is about character, not skin colour', and 'guns don't kill people, people do'. That is, they're superficially correct, but wrong whenever extended beyond their most strictly literal interpretation.

    If every pitbull were perfectly trained and controlled, there would probably be very few attacks; and yet this is just obscurantism to distract from the fact that pits are extremely aggressive, hard to train or restrain, and they attract stupid and irresponsible owners who are the least likely to want or be able to train them properly.

    So yes, the character of the people matters more, but if you distributed your (relatively affluent, I can assume?) suburb across the countryside there would likely be even more marginal criminality. Likewise, cramming your less affluent country folk into a dense suburb would intensify their criminality. But you're implicitly correct in that it cirlces back to the people since the country attracts white cityot refugees and is mainly composed of legacy rural whites; high density city cores attract largely non-white immigrants and are composed of immigrants and legacy africans. But even this is still a long way from 'doesn't matter', that's like saying mosquitoes matter but not standing water.

    the fact that pits are extremely aggressive, hard to train or restrain

    Those are far from facts.

    they attract stupid and irresponsible owners who are the least likely to want or be able to train them properly.

    Yes on this.

    Dogs have a relatively short breeding cycle, are highly social and people-influenced, and can be selectively bred easily. You can turn any large breed into dangerous dogs in a short period of time.

    But even this is still a long way from ‘doesn’t matter’, that’s like saying mosquitoes matter but not standing water.

    Doesn’t matter was a shorthand for “of very low coefficient.” You can cram a million Japanese into a tiny area and let them have guns, and you are not going to have much in the way of gun crimes. Put blacks (and to a lesser extent Hispanics) into a nice suburb or a rural area, gun crimes will spike. I am definitely NOT one of those “race is everything” people, but in the case of violent crime rates, race has very high correlations, and that’s the case (broadly) outside the United States as well. And within the same race, SES seems to matter substantially.

    • Replies: @Feryl

    Doesn’t matter was a shorthand for “of very low coefficient.” You can cram a million Japanese into a tiny area and let them have guns, and you are not going to have much in the way of gun crimes. Put blacks (and to a lesser extent Hispanics) into a nice suburb or a rural area, gun crimes will spike. I am definitely NOT one of those “race is everything” people, but in the case of violent crime rates, race has very high correlations, and that’s the case (broadly) outside the United States as well. And within the same race, SES seems to matter substantially.
     
    I would argue that Anglo-Teutonic norms select against violent aggression and ruthlessness, and it seems like other ethnic groups "colonize" violent crime "careers". In early 20th century America, we had lots of murders committed by Jews and Italians. But these ethnic groups eventually adopted Anglo-Teutonic norms of being less overtly violent (often under a great deal of pressure applied by more law abiding white ethnic groups). So who was left to pick up the slack? Blacks and Central Americans. It's been this way since the 1980's, when law enforcement smashed the Italian-American mafia into bits (and even before this happened, the American mafia by the 1970's was increasingly made up of desperate and stupid losers who were just asking to be crushed by the authorities; read anything by Joe Pistone who said he was often amazed by how ignorant and sleazy many mob players were when he went undercover in the 1970's mob). By contrast, Jewish gangsters stopped using as much overt violence and instead became "respectable" over-lords (or servants) of "legitimate" professions (like law, finance, intelligence, and entertainment).

    The lesson here is that ethnicity, and the assimilation toward often heavily enforced norms (we had to over-haul the American legal system in order to put more Mediterranean whites in prison to ease the minds of white Americans of Northern European decent), is as important as "race". Ron Unz admits that objective history proves that Jews and Italians had far greater involvement in organized crime than other white ethnic groups, including the Irish and the Slav gentiles, and that this has been the case ever since large numbers of them landed here in the late 19th century.
  26. @prime noticer
    interesting trend that we've seen before: africans don't want gun control in the city (where they live), but they're the most likely to want gun control in the suburbs, where YT lives. the racial results of the poll are undeniable, although not new. we've known africans felt this way for a while.

    they seem to live in constant fear that as soon as they step out of the inner city and into the suburbs, some dentist is going to blow them away. when in reality, they're by far most likely to be shot by one of their own guys when they're on 5th and Washington.

    they want YT suburbanite disarmed, maybe so it's safer for them to break the law there, but they don't mind getting capped by another brother in the city. what they really don't want is YT to be able to shoot back.

    we've seen productive africans with no criminal record state this kind of thing almost openly, because everybody has a family, and african families have criminals. so maybe one guy doesn't expect to get shot by YT, but he knows cousin Andre could get shot if YT is armed.

    Criminality is so pervasive among Blacks that even a law-abiding Black doesn’t want cousin Andre get shot while mugging a YT dentist in Whitelandia.

  27. @Priss Factor
    Whites need guns because blacks are more muscular and more aggressive.

    This is how blacks feel about whites.

    https://www.bitchute.com/video/RaNX4vLgwBvG/

    All the negros are very poor fighters in that video. If it wasn’t 12 v 1 the white guy might of has a chance.

    But, being in Minneapolish chances are he’s a shitlib anyways. Hopefully that smartened him up.

  28. @Arclight
    Right, it's no accident that all 'sensible' gun control measures would fall squarely on already law-abiding and mostly white citizens. Stuff like massive criminal penalties for the possession of illegal firearms or use in crime get less attention, because it would be Democrats advocating for laws that would lock up a lot of other Democrats (or at least their sons and grandsons). No one on the left wants to call attention to the fact that their urban strongholds are seeded with a wildly disproportionate share of homicidal residents and tend to be very low-trust communities. It would also destroy the premise of BLM and other lefty social movements that claim that repression by racists is the biggest problem/danger to POCs in America.

    The left's mania for disarming law-abiding citizens coupled with its barely veiled contempt for whites is probably turning even more people into 2nd amendment absolutists than anything the NRA could ever concoct. A less diverse, high-trust society would be more open to restrictions on gun ownership - indeed, just about everything the left claims it wants like a stronger social safety net are only possible in high-trust cultures, but in its zeal to kneecap the majority through mass immigration and identity politics they left is just ensuring common ground cannot be found. Which is probably the point, since they are more interested in power than the common good.

    The left’s mania for disarming law-abiding citizens coupled with its barely veiled contempt for whites is probably turning even more people into 2nd amendment absolutists than anything the NRA could ever concoct.

    I get that liberals don’t care about gun rights. What I don’t understand is how they fail to recognize that all the other amendments, which they at least claim to care about, are meaningless if only the government has guns.

    • Agree: Arclight
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    Best comment from Rosie, EVAH!
    , @Mr. Rational

    What I don’t understand is how they fail to recognize that all the other amendments, which they at least claim to care about, are meaningless if only the government has guns.
     
    That's very simple:  their concern is fake.  They want power, and for NO ONE to have any rights which restrict their exercise (abuse) of that power.  All their concern-trolling about "rights" is to arrogate more power to themselves.
  29. ‘145 Business Leaders Urge Congress To Enact Gun Control Legislation In Joint Letter’, Lisette Voytko, Forbes Staff, Sep 12, 2019, 08:57am, https://www.forbes.com/sites/lisettevoytko/2019/09/12/145-business-leaders-urge-congress-for-gun-control-in-joint-letter/#1d395d1d6ec3

    Executives from Uber, Twitter, Levi Strauss, plus 142 more, sent a letter to the Senate Thursday urgently requesting it enact gun control bills already introduced in the House, in what might be the most cohesive effort from American businesses to advance firearms legislation. The letter calls for expanded background checks on all gun sales, and red flag laws,which would keep guns out of the hands of at-risk people.

    Below is the complete list of signatures:

    Organizations with more than 500 employees:

    Brian Chesky, Cofounder, Head of Community and CEO, Airbnb
    Keith Mestrich, President and CEO, Amalgamated Bank
    John Connaughton and Jonathan Lavine, Co-Managing Partners, and Josh Bekenstein and Steve Pagliuca, Co-Chairmen, Bain Capital
    Ethan Brown, Cofounder and CEO, Beyond Meat
    Peter T. Grauer, Chairman, Bloomberg LP
    Ric Clark, Chairman, Brookfield Property Group
    Fritz Lanman, CEO, ClassPass
    Roger Lynch, CEO, Condé Nast
    Ken Lin, Founder and CEO, Credit Karma
    Edward Stack, CEO, DICK’S Sporting Goods
    Tony Xu, Cofounder and CEO, DoorDash
    Doug Baker, Chairman and CEO, Ecolab
    Richard Edelman, President and CEO, Edelman
    Julia Hartz, Co-Founder and CEO, Eventbrite
    Art Peck, CEO, Gap Inc.
    Eddy Lu, CEO, Goat Group
    Ben Lerer, Cofounder and CEO, Group Nine Media
    Yannick Bolloré, CEO, Havas Group
    Bill Koenigsberg, President, CEO and Founder, Horizon Media
    Patrick O. Brown, M.D., Ph.D., Founder and CEO, Impossible Foods
    Michael Roth, Chairman and CEO, Interpublic
    Rob Frohwein, Cofounder and CEO, and Kathryn Petralia, Cofounder and President, Kabbage Inc. and Drum Technologies
    Chip Bergh, President and CEO, Levi Strauss & Co.
    Logan Green, Cofounder and CEO, and John Zimmer, Co-Founder and President, Lyft
    Dev Ittycheria, President and CEO, MongoDB, Inc.
    Howard Marks, Co-Chairman, Oaktree Capital Management
    Todd McKinnon, Co-Founder and CEO, Okta
    John Wren, Chairman and CEO, Omnicom Group
    Ben Silbermann, Cofounder and CEO, Pinterest
    Bastian Lehmann, Cofounder & CEO, Postmates
    Hamid R. Moghadam, Chairman and CEO, Prologis
    Arthur Sadoun, Chairman and CEO, Publicis Groupe
    Steve Huffman, CEO, Reddit
    Richard Fain, CEO, Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd.
    Scott Rechler, Chairman and CEO, RXR Realty
    Jon Oringer, Founder and CEO, Shutterstock, Inc.
    Jack Dorsey, CEO, Square and Twitter
    Anthony Casalena, Founder and CEO, Squarespace
    Zander Lurie, CEO, SurveyMonkey
    Arianna Huffington, Founder and CEO, Thrive Global
    Blake Mycoskie, Founder and Chief Shoe Giver, and Jim Alling, CEO, TOMS
    Jeff Lawson, Cofounder and CEO, Twilio
    Dara Khosrowshahi, CEO, Uber
    Mark Read, CEO, WPP
    Jeremy Stoppelman, Cofounder and CEO, Yelp

    Organizations with fewer than 500 employees:

    Kevin P. Ryan, Founder and CEO, AlleyCorp
    Travis Truett, Cofounder and CEO, Ambition
    John W. Rogers, Jr., Founder, Chairman and Co-CEO, and Mellody Hobson, Co-CEO & President, Ariel Investments, LLC
    Mike Steib, CEO, Artsy
    Sean Knapp, Cofounder and CEO, Ascend.io
    Andrei Cherny, Cofounder and CEO, Aspiration
    Abdur Chowdhury, CEO, Aura
    Fahim M. Aziz, Founder and CEO, Backpack
    JJ Abrams, Chairman and Co-CEO, and Katie McGrath, Co-CEO, Bad Robot
    Ari Paparo, CEO, BeeswaxIO Corporation
    Ryan Block, Cofounder, Begin
    John Borthwick, Founder and CEO, Betaworks
    Raphael Crawford-Marks, Cofounder and CEO, Bonusly
    Darren Lachtman, Cofounder, Brat
    Trevor McFedries, CEO, Brud
    Sameer Shariff, Cofounder, Cambly
    Analisa Goodin, Founder and CEO, Catch&Release, Inc.
    Andrew Feldman, Founder and CEO, Cerebras Systems
    George Favvas, CEO, Circle Medical
    Alex MacCaw, CEO, Clearbit
    Tyler Bosmeny, CEO, Clever
    Matt Martin, Cofounder and CEO, Clockwise
    Othman Laraki, Cofounder and CEO, Color Genomics
    Jager McConnell, CEO, Crunchbase, Inc.
    Apu Gupta, Cofounder and CEO, Curalate, Inc.
    David Oates, Cofounder and CEO, Curtsy
    Brian Ree, Founder and CEO, DAILYLOOK
    Saurabh Ladha, CEO, Doxel, Inc.
    Andy Coravos, Cofounder and CEO, Elektra Labs
    Laurene Powell Jobs, President, Emerson Collective
    Pradeep Elankumaran, Cofounder & CEO, Farmstead
    Desiree Gruber, CEO, Full Picture
    Jared Hecht, Founder and CEO, Fundera
    Jude Gomila, Founder and CEO, Golden
    Rick Nucci, Cofounder and CEO, Guru
    Kara Goldin, Founder and CEO, Hint, Inc.
    Jeff Sellinger, Cofounder and CEO, HipDot
    Prerna Gupta, CEO, Hooked
    Cyrus Massoumi, Managing Partner, humbition
    Kristin Savilia, CEO, JOOR
    Pierre Valade, CEO, Jumbo Privacy
    William Martino, Founder and CEO, Kadena
    Jake Perlman-Garr, CEO, Kanga
    Warren Shaeffer, Cofounder and CEO, Knowable
    Jack Altman, CEO, Lattice
    Aaron N. Block, Cofounder and Managing Director, MetaProp.vc
    Afton Vechery, Cofounder and CEO, Modern Fertility
    Dan Parham, Founder and CEO, and Tee Parham, Founder and CTO, Neighborland
    Shafqat Islam, CEO, NewsCred
    Sarah Friar, CEO, Nextdoor
    Athan Stephanopoulos, President, NowThis
    Varsha Rao, CEO, Nurx
    William E. Oberndorf, Chairman, Oberndorf Enterprises
    Steven Rosenblatt, Cofounder and General Partner, Oceans
    Nick Huzar, Cofounder and CEO, OfferUp
    James Segil, Cofounder and President, Openpath
    Jordan Husney, CEO, Parabol
    Doug Aley, CEO, Paravision
    John Milinovich, CEO, Plato Design
    Rajat Suri, CEO, Presto
    Christopher Gavigan, Founder and CEO, Prima
    Adam Regelmann, Founder and COO, Quartzy
    Nate Maslak, Cofounder and CEO, and Nate Fox, Co-Founder and CTO, Ribbon Health
    Zachariah Reitano, Cofounder and CEO, Ro
    Gary Beasley, Cofounder and CEO, Roofstock
    Stephen Ehikian, Cofounder and CEO, Ruist
    Brian Schechter, CEO, SelfMade
    Olga Vidisheva, Founder and CEO, Shoptiques Inc.
    Dan Doctoroff, CEO, Sidewalk Labs
    Jason Tan, CEO, Sift
    Matt Cooper, CEO, Skillshare
    Grant Jordan, CEO, SkySafe
    Josh Guttman, Cofounder and CEO and Florent Peyre, Co-Founder and President, Small Door
    Michael Carvin, Cofounder and CEO, SmartAsset
    Aaron King, Founder and CEO, Snapdocs, Inc.
    Neil Capel, CEO, Solve.io
    Ben Hindman, Cofounder and CEO, Splash
    Evan Beard, Founder and CEO, Standard Bots
    Stanlee R. Gatti, Founder, Stanlee R. Gatti Designs
    Bradford Oberwager, CEO, Sundia Corporation
    Ross Feinstein, CEO, Sunlight Health
    Paul Budnitz, CEO, Superplastic
    Ron Conway, Founder, SV Angel
    Heidi Zak, Cofounder and Co-CEO, and David Spector, Co-Founder and Co-CEO, ThirdLove
    Yashar Nejati, CEO, thisopenspace inc.
    Joshua Kushner, Founder and Managing Partner, Thrive Capital
    Chris Wang, CEO, ThunderCore Inc.
    Corbett Kull, CEO, Tillable
    Meghan Jewitt, CEO, Uniform Teeth
    Nicholas Goldner, Cofounder and CEO, and Christopher Bulow, Co-Founder and COO,
    Viosera Therapeutics
    Ken Chong, CEO, Virtual Kitchen Co
    Irv Remedios, CEO, Voxer
    Oliver Cameron, Cofounder and CEO, Voyage
    Chase Adam, Cofounder and CEO, and Grace Garey, Co-Founder and COO, Watsi
    Liz Wessel, Cofounder and CEO, WayUp
    Neil Waller, CEO, Whalar
    Bismarck Lepe, CEO, Wizeline
    Dennis R. Mortensen, Founder and CEO, x.ai, inc.
    Geoff Ralston, President, Y Combinator
    Shan-Lyn Ma, Cofounder and CEO, Zola

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational

    John Connaughton and Jonathan Lavine, Co-Managing Partners, and Josh Bekenstein and Steve Pagliuca, Co-Chairmen, Bain Capital
     
    Mittens Romney's outfit.

    Figures.
    , @LoutishAngloQuebecker
    Well, yeah. That's why I just don't give any money into the system, unless it's to a white, locally owned family business.

    Pay a few extra bucks to stay at a BnB , so you don't use AirBnB.

    Corporations are not on your side. Starve the beast. Eat at home, buy only healthy food and the basics. Haggle for the cheapest prices. Price Match.
  30. The point of a mandatory buyback program is not to literally obtain the guns. That won’t happen and they know that perfectly well.

    The point is to turn all ARs into illegal guns. This takes them off the chessboard just the same.

    They will be hidden in attics, stuffed beneath sheds, buried in pelican cases in the yard. Most will be afraid to use them for any reason including self defense. “Rather by judged by 12 than carried by 6” yeah, we’ll see. The guns will practically speaking cease to exist. People are not going to roll the dice on 10 years in the fed or getting their whole family including the dog executed by the local PD SWAT team. And it’s not even a dice roll — you are guilty period because possession of the weapon is illegal period.

    The flippant response of “lmao, not for sale queer” is not sufficient to this threat. That’s exactly what they want you to do.

  31. @216

    I don’t think it’s guns keeping rural whites safe
     
    It hasn't kept them safe from opium, nor from cultural subversion or economic decline.

    And the only thing gun legislation in cities has accomplished is making city dwelling whites defenseless.
     
    New York has been willing to violate numerous Constitutional principles in the pursuit of decreasing crime. The city was also highly gentrified, with its Great Migration black population partially replaced with new immigrants.

    Jurisdictionally, New York is the most restrictive because even purchasing a firearm requires begging and bribing the NYPD for permission. Even the rather restrictive San Francisco is pre-empted at the state level from imposing a more stringent local ban.

    The inconvenient truth for conservatives is that giving the police the arbitrary power to deny firearms would probably swiftly eliminate most suicide terrorism by mass shooters. Mexico has a large amount of crime, but firearms are either regulated by the military or by cartels; the cartels also offer an outlet for youth violence. Thus this kind of suicide terrorism is absent in Mexico, which otherwise is a good example against gun control.

    From a conspiratorial standpoint, I have no doubt that the intelligence agencies will continue winding up these terrorists until a ban is passed.

    “Jurisdictionally, New York is the most restrictive because even purchasing a firearm requires begging and bribing the NYPD for permission.”

    Perhaps. But it’s the Information Age and 2A activists haven’t adapted. There’s no reason why 2A activists can’t form on a city block basis, or even on a large building basis. All you need is to find a fellow 2A or a person that wants to get a gun but has no support network against the communists that inhabit the Powers-that-be. The anti-gunners can be vector for spreading the “cancer” of gun ownership, to use the medical terminology the gun controllers love. I am reminded of the NJ boy who had a S&W .22LR AR clone and the the amazing hand-wringing that followed once his photo armed with such. You can hasten the process by doing a green screen of an appropriate background and showing the various firearms implements (standard capacity mags, ARs, AKs, etc) that NY has made illegal. You want to spread the moral panic of Gun Ownership against the Cosmopolitan world order.

    You ask, what would hold the club together while you get people to apply for gun ownership? The whole point is to become as George Bush states: ‘One of the Thousand Points of Light.’ Your club should try to emulate politically something like gunssavelife ( http://www.gunssavelife.com/ ) or others that make real noise.

    But what else can keep people interested while they wait for their gun? I think this video just using Airsoft could be the key to starting ordinary people down the road to gun ownership and skills optimization.

  32. @Rosie

    The left’s mania for disarming law-abiding citizens coupled with its barely veiled contempt for whites is probably turning even more people into 2nd amendment absolutists than anything the NRA could ever concoct.
     
    I get that liberals don't care about gun rights. What I don't understand is how they fail to recognize that all the other amendments, which they at least claim to care about, are meaningless if only the government has guns.

    Best comment from Rosie, EVAH!

  33. @dc.sunsets
    Chicago's gun laws are the same as the rest of IL's (except Chicago's pols have put gun stores in Crook County out of business...but that's otherwise meaningless.)

    IL has a "shall issue" license system for carrying a concealed handgun. Chicago has no legal means of preventing residents from obtaining a license, and tens of thousands have done so. Even Chicago's magazine-size limit laws are null and void where it intersects with handgun magazines. Once obtaining the license a resident of Chicago can carry a Glock 19 with a 15 (or heck, a 33) round magazine if he or she can conceal it.

    As AE notes, this is irrelevant to the "debate."

    Now I do disagree vehemently with the notion that police protection from violence can be ordered like a pizza, in the city or anywhere. The entire notion of armed self-defense rests on the fact that in the 1-in-10,000 chance you need protection, you need it immediately. Not in 5 minutes. Not in fifty seconds. RIGHT NOW, or it may very well be meaningless. If you are not next to your bodyguard, or you are not your own bodyguard, you are not guarded. Live with it. Live like you're unarmed and walking among predators...because while they're rare, they're there and you can't tell which of the animals is dangerous. The sad fact is that an adult male human is quite literally the most dangerous animal on Earth, more dangerous than a polar bear, an African Elephant, a Nile Crocodile, a Black Mamba snake. Only a man (or woman, but men are more aggressive) can kill at a distance.

    This is the paradox of armed self-defense. One spends $400+ on obtaining the CCL (concealed carry license), $200 to $600 on a common, quality firearm, $50 or more on a holster (after spending hundreds on others that didn't work out), and hundreds of dollars on ammunition with which to practice (because safely and effectively using a handgun is quite challenging and requires considerable time and effort, if not professional--expensive--instruction) and drags the 2 lbs of loaded gun around, all for an event that:
    1. The prudent CCL-holder is unusually cautious to avoid.
    2. Is thus very, very unlikely.
    3. Even if encountered, the gun may very well not be the best solution.

    Those who choose to carry a firearm legally face a mountain of obstacles and real-world disincentives, most of which have nothing to political clown action. For most people, it probably is better to simply "take your chances" while being in "avoid trouble mode." For those who insist on walking into harm's way, there's no hope anyway.

    As the SCOTUS has ruled, the police have no legal obligation to provide personal protection services to any individual. It's simply not their job, and they're not organized to do so. Theirs is a more "social" level of order-maintenance. They'll keep the chaos from going to full boil, but if you are the particular individual who draws the short straw and runs into a violent predator, you are ON YOUR OWN.

    There’s another aspect that you didn’t discuss there, Astonished. That is, brandishing a gun often is enough to get the bad sorts to leave you alone. All the instances in which a concealed gun carrier (I’m not gonna use some government acronym, because as far as I’m concerned, you don’t need any piece of paper) pulls it out of his pocket or holster, or even just puts his hand on the grips, and would-be perps leave him alone do not make the news.

    Those instances don’t get recorded at all, because who would want to make a thing about it. The cops are not your friends in this respect.

    I am nothing if not a curmudgeon, but if there is one thing getting better in the US as of late, it’s the Concealed Carry laws. I’ve put this map up a few times, but here you go again (look at the greens – the States that abide by the Constitution – in THIS respect):

    Constitutional Carry went from just Vermont (This is Bernie Country!) in 1986 to 13 States in 2017.

    • Agree: Twinkie
    • Replies: @Twinkie
    This is largely due to the massive growth of local pro-gun groups. These little platoons do actual advocacy work and do the heavy-lifting in mobilizing the grassroots and hammering the wavering votes in state legislatures, unlike those useless, corrupt clowns at the NRA.

    By the way, another positive sign for the pro-2A side is the dramatic growth of female hunters and concealed carry licensees. So here is to you and your sisters, Rosie! ;)
  34. I was just over at Slate complaining that their headline incorrectly and misleadingly called the “my AR-15 is ready for you” statement by a Texas lawmaker to Beto a “death threat.” In no context can be construed as a death threat..no more than a NRA t-shirt that says “I will defend the 2nd Amend with the 2nd Amend” can be construed a death threat. Neither of those things are death threats because (among many other reasons) President Beto won’t personally confiscate weapons (should it come to that) therefore he won’t be the person exposed to risk during confiscation. Slate calls it a death threat (no quote marks) because Beto calls it a death threat, defaulting to pathos over logos.

    The reaction among the Slate commentariat was predictable, yet I’m always amazed at the extent to which SJW’s embrace the lies that are interwoven through the leftist mythology that they embrace. When I ask why the Texas guy wasn’t arrested since he was making (by their account) a “death threat”, some commenter (who sort of presents himself as a lawyer) says something like these kind of laws aren’t enforced consistently. He then tries to tie some notion of Beto being a federal agent to some lower legal hurdle within which an intimidating statement can be considered a death threat…but then drifts to the fact that Beto is no longer a federal agent as an explanation why the Texas guy wasn’t arrested, contradicting himself on multiple levels. And he’s one of the SMART ones over there.

    There are many times that I think Right and Left simply have different perspectives on things, but I’m frequently reminded – through face to face interactions – that the Left has a genuine problem with the truth a disturbing amount of the time.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
    • Replies: @A123

    I was just over at Slate complaining that their headline incorrectly and misleadingly called the “my AR-15 is ready for you” statement by a Texas lawmaker to Beto a “death threat.”
     
    Sorry to hear it but anyone reading pro-state Slate is probably a lost cause.

    Wear this and watch SJW heads explode:

    https://img0.etsystatic.com/129/1/13518249/il_fullxfull.1024048376_47qd.jpg

  35. @prime noticer
    interesting trend that we've seen before: africans don't want gun control in the city (where they live), but they're the most likely to want gun control in the suburbs, where YT lives. the racial results of the poll are undeniable, although not new. we've known africans felt this way for a while.

    they seem to live in constant fear that as soon as they step out of the inner city and into the suburbs, some dentist is going to blow them away. when in reality, they're by far most likely to be shot by one of their own guys when they're on 5th and Washington.

    they want YT suburbanite disarmed, maybe so it's safer for them to break the law there, but they don't mind getting capped by another brother in the city. what they really don't want is YT to be able to shoot back.

    we've seen productive africans with no criminal record state this kind of thing almost openly, because everybody has a family, and african families have criminals. so maybe one guy doesn't expect to get shot by YT, but he knows cousin Andre could get shot if YT is armed.

    interesting trend that we’ve seen before: africans don’t want gun control in the city (where they live), but they’re the most likely to want gun control in the suburbs, where YT lives. the racial results of the poll are undeniable, although not new. we’ve known africans felt this way for a while.

    Blacks are nervous that whites will, one day, take matters into their hands again, and stop relying on a police state to deal with unruly blacks. That’s how it was before the Civil Rights era, and who’s to say we can’t go back to that system?

    Also, whether it’s white citizens or the nominally “white” law enforcement system, blacks really don’t like the idea of any non-African entity telling them how to behave, or even just getting in their way and slowing them down. This is what we have to show for the last 70 years of “progress” (white naivete being taken advantage of).

  36. @Achmed E. Newman
    There's another aspect that you didn't discuss there, Astonished. That is, brandishing a gun often is enough to get the bad sorts to leave you alone. All the instances in which a concealed gun carrier (I'm not gonna use some government acronym, because as far as I'm concerned, you don't need any piece of paper) pulls it out of his pocket or holster, or even just puts his hand on the grips, and would-be perps leave him alone do not make the news.

    Those instances don't get recorded at all, because who would want to make a thing about it. The cops are not your friends in this respect.

    I am nothing if not a curmudgeon, but if there is one thing getting better in the US as of late, it's the Concealed Carry laws. I've put this map up a few times, but here you go again (look at the greens - the States that abide by the Constitution - in THIS respect):

    https://www.peakstupidity.com/images/CCC.gif

    Constitutional Carry went from just Vermont (This is Bernie Country!) in 1986 to 13 States in 2017.

    This is largely due to the massive growth of local pro-gun groups. These little platoons do actual advocacy work and do the heavy-lifting in mobilizing the grassroots and hammering the wavering votes in state legislatures, unlike those useless, corrupt clowns at the NRA.

    By the way, another positive sign for the pro-2A side is the dramatic growth of female hunters and concealed carry licensees. So here is to you and your sisters, Rosie! 😉

  37. @prime noticer
    "It’s particularly schools that attract the most intense reaction."

    the main reason these school shootings are in suburban schools and almost never happen in the inner city is because the big african high schools were turned into locked down prisons 30 years ago, with metal detectors, fences, and police as standard.

    this is something NOBODY ever talks about, even in HBD world. urban high schools were converted into no shooting zones decades ago. otherwise yeah, brothers would be coming to school shooting each other. that's actually why they don't anymore. because they did 35 years ago.

    "Oh it's the white loser nerd who comes to school with a gun." well, it wasn't back when this started. they just shut down the Jamals and Dontrells a while ago. suburban school shooting are still so rare, and there's so many of them (literally 10,000 suburban high schools) that's it not practical to turn all of them into locked down prisons like Morgan Freeman did in Lean On Me.

    the main reason these school shootings are in suburban schools and almost never happen in the inner city is because the big african high schools were turned into locked down prisons 30 years ago, with metal detectors, fences, and police as standard.

    this is something NOBODY ever talks about, even in HBD world. urban high schools were converted into no shooting zones decades ago. otherwise yeah, brothers would be coming to school shooting each other. that’s actually why they don’t anymore. because they did 35 years ago.

    In lieu of swiftly “correcting” black delinquents to send a message to possible trouble makers that being a reprobate wasn’t worth it (as was done before circa 1950), we instead have to rely on police state measures of surveillance and control, where we expect “inner city youth” to be a menace who must be arrested, detained, and incarcerated in large numbers. This is what happens when police are not permitted to give the night-stick to purse snatchers (before the 1950’s, criminals including black ones feared immediate physical retribution from both police and white civilians).

    Logistically, and public safety wise, I think that it’s pretty objectively superior to have the occasional street beating of criminals by police and concerned citizens instead of detaining and imprisoning millions of them. Instead of immediate (and often effective) retribution, we now pay kajillions of dollars to law enf., the judiciary, and the penal system to confiscate guns, spy on people, and incarcerate massive numbers of people.

    That being said, the current police state is so stringent that Millennials, more so than the generations who were young in the 70’s and 80’s, have to a large extent opted out of committing more crime. We saw so many Boomers and X-ers get caught up in the system, that we don’t want to make the same mistakes they did.

  38. @Priss Factor
    Whites need guns because blacks are more muscular and more aggressive.

    This is how blacks feel about whites.

    https://www.bitchute.com/video/RaNX4vLgwBvG/

    Whites need guns because blacks are more muscular and more aggressive.

    So, that’s why there are no white offensive line-men, strong-men, body builders, heavy weight boxers, and wrestlers.

    News flash: Northern Europeans are, on average, as physically large as American blacks. Because so many white doofuses only understand blacks through sports, then well I suppose it’s logical to assume that blacks are taller, wider, and stronger than American whites.

    Blacks have more fast twitch muscle fibers, which translates to blacks being able to sprint short distances faster than whites. It also translates to non-tired blacks being able to punch harder than whites. But the trade-off is that blacks tire faster than whites, something that’s quite important in boxing and other combat sports. American whites dominate collegiate wrestling and do pretty well in MMA. Fewer and fewer American whites have boxed since, what, the 1950’s? But Eastern European whites have done quite well in international boxing since the dissolution of the Soviet Union (leading to complaints from cucked Western journalists that boxing has gotten more “boring”).

    Why do so many nerdy Western whites automatically assume that American blacks are athletic ubermensch? If we define athleticism as “runs in a straight line for 100 yrds at a high rate of speed”, then sure, I suppose blacks are gifted athletes. However, in terms of size, strength, speed, stamina, hand-eye coordination etc. I think you could make a valid argument that Northern Europeans are the best all around athletes (notably, West Africans sprint fast, East African do long distance running well, while Europeans do the mid-distance running very well; whites are the jack of all trades athletes).

    One thing that America is going to regret is spoiling it’s once admirable ethnic mixture of fine athleticism; American whites, American blacks, and American Indians (e.g. America of pre-1970) are all fairly large and athletic ethnic groups. Asians, Central American natives, mestizos, and other such New Americans are all going to bring down the average level of size and athleticism within America.

    Lastly, whites take longer to physically develop than blacks. So a lot of well-built 35 year old white guys were quite a bit smaller when they were in high school. This hurts them relative to black athletes; one reason coaches started to favor black recruits is because they physically mature at least 25% faster than whites.

    • Replies: @SafeNow
    Good summary of white vs. black athletic/fighting ability factors. I would add the fact that black assailants hunt in packs. I remember seeing a youtube of a white guy, a wrestler, shooting (pardon the pun) a great takedown on his assailant...but within seconds, the assailant’s colleagues were kicking the white guy, next stop, emergency room. (where, if you are here in Calif, get ready for a 5-hour wait).
  39. @Twinkie

    the fact that pits are extremely aggressive, hard to train or restrain
     
    Those are far from facts.

    they attract stupid and irresponsible owners who are the least likely to want or be able to train them properly.
     
    Yes on this.

    Dogs have a relatively short breeding cycle, are highly social and people-influenced, and can be selectively bred easily. You can turn any large breed into dangerous dogs in a short period of time.

    But even this is still a long way from ‘doesn’t matter’, that’s like saying mosquitoes matter but not standing water.
     
    Doesn’t matter was a shorthand for “of very low coefficient.” You can cram a million Japanese into a tiny area and let them have guns, and you are not going to have much in the way of gun crimes. Put blacks (and to a lesser extent Hispanics) into a nice suburb or a rural area, gun crimes will spike. I am definitely NOT one of those “race is everything” people, but in the case of violent crime rates, race has very high correlations, and that’s the case (broadly) outside the United States as well. And within the same race, SES seems to matter substantially.

    Doesn’t matter was a shorthand for “of very low coefficient.” You can cram a million Japanese into a tiny area and let them have guns, and you are not going to have much in the way of gun crimes. Put blacks (and to a lesser extent Hispanics) into a nice suburb or a rural area, gun crimes will spike. I am definitely NOT one of those “race is everything” people, but in the case of violent crime rates, race has very high correlations, and that’s the case (broadly) outside the United States as well. And within the same race, SES seems to matter substantially.

    I would argue that Anglo-Teutonic norms select against violent aggression and ruthlessness, and it seems like other ethnic groups “colonize” violent crime “careers”. In early 20th century America, we had lots of murders committed by Jews and Italians. But these ethnic groups eventually adopted Anglo-Teutonic norms of being less overtly violent (often under a great deal of pressure applied by more law abiding white ethnic groups). So who was left to pick up the slack? Blacks and Central Americans. It’s been this way since the 1980’s, when law enforcement smashed the Italian-American mafia into bits (and even before this happened, the American mafia by the 1970’s was increasingly made up of desperate and stupid losers who were just asking to be crushed by the authorities; read anything by Joe Pistone who said he was often amazed by how ignorant and sleazy many mob players were when he went undercover in the 1970’s mob). By contrast, Jewish gangsters stopped using as much overt violence and instead became “respectable” over-lords (or servants) of “legitimate” professions (like law, finance, intelligence, and entertainment).

    The lesson here is that ethnicity, and the assimilation toward often heavily enforced norms (we had to over-haul the American legal system in order to put more Mediterranean whites in prison to ease the minds of white Americans of Northern European decent), is as important as “race”. Ron Unz admits that objective history proves that Jews and Italians had far greater involvement in organized crime than other white ethnic groups, including the Irish and the Slav gentiles, and that this has been the case ever since large numbers of them landed here in the late 19th century.

  40. My one observation here is that

    police presence and resilience matters. And anyone who thinks otherwise does not have a firm grasp of how deterrence works. The problem is always increased government power to benefit.

    And while gun ownership cannot be denied. The management of how that is applied has a very long history. Take for example the ever popular Tomb Stone and Dodge City, you could own a weapon, but when and where one could carry it was restricted.

    “From August 1873 through 1875 apparently no violent deaths occurred, and from early 1876 through 1886 (Dodge’s cattle-trading period and during its ban on the open carry of sidearms), the known body count averaged less than two violent deaths per year, hardly shocking.”

    https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/how-dodge-city-became-symbol-frontier-lawlessness-180967912/

    My comment here is not to advance taking weapons. It is:

    1. acknowledging that gin control is not new nor merely a tool to inhibit self defense

    2. not the role of an enforcement presence (police presence)

    • Replies: @Joe Stalin
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oj4M74_9z5Q
  41. Paddock,Breivik, Tarrant, Bryant, Gray, Hamilton, Earnest,Harris, Klebold…..etc….
    All big, tall, muscular…with plenty of fast twich muscle fibrer…blah…blah….

    The ONLY thing “they” are afraid of are aware White males of middle/working class. All this “setup” has one, and just one purpose only: to keep that part of society under control.

    The “setup” isn’t for controlling individuals as in the first paragraph, no.
    It’s for preventing organized groups of aware and dedicated people working together towards the common goal. That’s their true nightmare.
    Something like:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schutzstaffel
    Or…hehe….as
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Resistance_Movement

    And, contrary to a certain obsession with owning a toy to LARP with, it’s not about weapons. It’s about something else.
    When just 1% in that social group above have that something else getting proper tools for a “job” is a joke.

    • Agree: Not my Economy
    • Replies: @216
    The solution to a gun ban is not .223

    The solution is 2-26
    , @Not my Economy
    It's kind of encouraging that they are so obsessed with guns.

    From where I sit, it looks like they've already fucked us on the deeper level, the ability to trust and operate as a group. Maybe they think we'll start to figure it out.

    A dude with a henry lever action, a casio wristwatch and a buddy he trusts to drive the getaway car and be his alibi is more dangerous than 100 guys with 3 tricked out AR-15s each who all think the rest of the guys are feds.
  42. “The main reason these school shootings are in suburban schools and almost never happen in the inner city is because the big African high schools were turned into locked down prisons 30 years ago, with metal detectors, fences, and police as standard.”

    My sister teaches in a suburban school and says the same thing. Suburban schools are totally unprepared for any sort of gun crime which makes it easier for it to happen. I think most whites underestimate how violent blacks actually are. When neighborhoods became desegregated in the sixties there was a huge spike in crime because whites weren’t used to being around blacks and were caught unprepared. A friend lives in the same inner city neighborhood his parents did. He has a fence, burglar alarm and a couple of guns. His parents didn’t have anything like that. They didn’t even lock their front door sometimes. So they were sitting ducks when blacks started to move nearby. The drop in crime in recent years isn’t just because younger blacks are better behaved. It’s because anyone with stuff worth stealing has either moved far away or turned their house into a fortress and stay in at night instead of going out for a walk. This isn’t just homeowners either. When you walked into a big city store in an earlier era you didn’t see a big piece of bulletproof glass between you and the store cashier like you often do now.

  43. @EliteCommInc.
    My one observation here is that

    police presence and resilience matters. And anyone who thinks otherwise does not have a firm grasp of how deterrence works. The problem is always increased government power to benefit.

    And while gun ownership cannot be denied. The management of how that is applied has a very long history. Take for example the ever popular Tomb Stone and Dodge City, you could own a weapon, but when and where one could carry it was restricted.

    "From August 1873 through 1875 apparently no violent deaths occurred, and from early 1876 through 1886 (Dodge’s cattle-trading period and during its ban on the open carry of sidearms), the known body count averaged less than two violent deaths per year, hardly shocking."

    https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/how-dodge-city-became-symbol-frontier-lawlessness-180967912/

    My comment here is not to advance taking weapons. It is:

    1. acknowledging that gin control is not new nor merely a tool to inhibit self defense

    2. not the role of an enforcement presence (police presence)

  44. @peterAUS
    Paddock,Breivik, Tarrant, Bryant, Gray, Hamilton, Earnest,Harris, Klebold…..etc….
    All big, tall, muscular…with plenty of fast twich muscle fibrer…blah…blah….

    The ONLY thing “they” are afraid of are aware White males of middle/working class. All this “setup” has one, and just one purpose only: to keep that part of society under control.

    The "setup" isn't for controlling individuals as in the first paragraph, no.
    It's for preventing organized groups of aware and dedicated people working together towards the common goal. That’s their true nightmare.
    Something like:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schutzstaffel
    Or...hehe....as
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Resistance_Movement

    And, contrary to a certain obsession with owning a toy to LARP with, it's not about weapons. It's about something else.
    When just 1% in that social group above have that something else getting proper tools for a "job" is a joke.

    The solution to a gun ban is not .223

    The solution is 2-26

    • Replies: @peterAUS
    Hahahaha........
    "Your comment will appear after approval from the schoolmarm. Approval of a comment emphatically does NOT imply an endorsement of its contents by the authors of this blog or by The Unz Review."
    Who the FUCK is the schoolmarm?

    At last.

    Hahaha.......Good work.
    Oh my.

    Hilarious.
  45. Is there some reason you refuse to mention the demographic responsible for what, 90% of urban violence in the US? If there were no blacks in urban areas this entire topic would be moot.

    Urban whites kill less people with guns than they do with their cars.

  46. @dc.sunsets
    Chicago's gun laws are the same as the rest of IL's (except Chicago's pols have put gun stores in Crook County out of business...but that's otherwise meaningless.)

    IL has a "shall issue" license system for carrying a concealed handgun. Chicago has no legal means of preventing residents from obtaining a license, and tens of thousands have done so. Even Chicago's magazine-size limit laws are null and void where it intersects with handgun magazines. Once obtaining the license a resident of Chicago can carry a Glock 19 with a 15 (or heck, a 33) round magazine if he or she can conceal it.

    As AE notes, this is irrelevant to the "debate."

    Now I do disagree vehemently with the notion that police protection from violence can be ordered like a pizza, in the city or anywhere. The entire notion of armed self-defense rests on the fact that in the 1-in-10,000 chance you need protection, you need it immediately. Not in 5 minutes. Not in fifty seconds. RIGHT NOW, or it may very well be meaningless. If you are not next to your bodyguard, or you are not your own bodyguard, you are not guarded. Live with it. Live like you're unarmed and walking among predators...because while they're rare, they're there and you can't tell which of the animals is dangerous. The sad fact is that an adult male human is quite literally the most dangerous animal on Earth, more dangerous than a polar bear, an African Elephant, a Nile Crocodile, a Black Mamba snake. Only a man (or woman, but men are more aggressive) can kill at a distance.

    This is the paradox of armed self-defense. One spends $400+ on obtaining the CCL (concealed carry license), $200 to $600 on a common, quality firearm, $50 or more on a holster (after spending hundreds on others that didn't work out), and hundreds of dollars on ammunition with which to practice (because safely and effectively using a handgun is quite challenging and requires considerable time and effort, if not professional--expensive--instruction) and drags the 2 lbs of loaded gun around, all for an event that:
    1. The prudent CCL-holder is unusually cautious to avoid.
    2. Is thus very, very unlikely.
    3. Even if encountered, the gun may very well not be the best solution.

    Those who choose to carry a firearm legally face a mountain of obstacles and real-world disincentives, most of which have nothing to political clown action. For most people, it probably is better to simply "take your chances" while being in "avoid trouble mode." For those who insist on walking into harm's way, there's no hope anyway.

    As the SCOTUS has ruled, the police have no legal obligation to provide personal protection services to any individual. It's simply not their job, and they're not organized to do so. Theirs is a more "social" level of order-maintenance. They'll keep the chaos from going to full boil, but if you are the particular individual who draws the short straw and runs into a violent predator, you are ON YOUR OWN.

    Once obtaining the license a resident of Chicago can carry a Glock 19 with a 15 (or heck, a 33) round magazine if he or she can conceal it.

    Some of those Chicago shes can conceal larger weapons just in their fat rolls.

    Here’s a “Florida woman” case:

    http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/florida/cops-find-vagina-knife-431095

  47. @peterAUS
    Paddock,Breivik, Tarrant, Bryant, Gray, Hamilton, Earnest,Harris, Klebold…..etc….
    All big, tall, muscular…with plenty of fast twich muscle fibrer…blah…blah….

    The ONLY thing “they” are afraid of are aware White males of middle/working class. All this “setup” has one, and just one purpose only: to keep that part of society under control.

    The "setup" isn't for controlling individuals as in the first paragraph, no.
    It's for preventing organized groups of aware and dedicated people working together towards the common goal. That’s their true nightmare.
    Something like:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schutzstaffel
    Or...hehe....as
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Resistance_Movement

    And, contrary to a certain obsession with owning a toy to LARP with, it's not about weapons. It's about something else.
    When just 1% in that social group above have that something else getting proper tools for a "job" is a joke.

    It’s kind of encouraging that they are so obsessed with guns.

    From where I sit, it looks like they’ve already fucked us on the deeper level, the ability to trust and operate as a group. Maybe they think we’ll start to figure it out.

    A dude with a henry lever action, a casio wristwatch and a buddy he trusts to drive the getaway car and be his alibi is more dangerous than 100 guys with 3 tricked out AR-15s each who all think the rest of the guys are feds.

    • Replies: @peterAUS
    Now...should I pass that school marmalade censorship....I mean moderation, here it is:

    I hear you.

    Could change a bit:

    A dude with a SMLE/M1903 Springfield/Mauser 98/Mosin–Nagant, customized, optics, a casio wristwatch and alone (not telling a living soul, ever) is more dangerous than 100 guys with 3 tricked out AR-15s each who all think the rest of the guys are feds.
    It's all about OPSEC, target selection and one-shot placement.
  48. JS:

    That was a very interesting video —

    and appreciated. I had never heard the political angle in that manner —–

    imagine that,

    a period, and environment when democrats were more than irritated by weapons restrictions.

    Laugh —–

  49. @Rosie

    The left’s mania for disarming law-abiding citizens coupled with its barely veiled contempt for whites is probably turning even more people into 2nd amendment absolutists than anything the NRA could ever concoct.
     
    I get that liberals don't care about gun rights. What I don't understand is how they fail to recognize that all the other amendments, which they at least claim to care about, are meaningless if only the government has guns.

    What I don’t understand is how they fail to recognize that all the other amendments, which they at least claim to care about, are meaningless if only the government has guns.

    That’s very simple:  their concern is fake.  They want power, and for NO ONE to have any rights which restrict their exercise (abuse) of that power.  All their concern-trolling about “rights” is to arrogate more power to themselves.

    • Replies: @216
    The only gun control law that liberals would oppose in theory would be one that specifically barred either blacks or communists from firearms ownership.

    No US liberal to my knowledge has ever labed a European or Asian gun control regime as "tyrannical".

    In fact, many consider it insulting that "hunting guns" have to be preserved, and consider this an act of reckless generosity.

    Indeed, not that long ago the left was claiming that Amdt. II was solely about respecting the rights of states to maintain the National Guard. This was quite the leap, considering that the NG was only created in 1903, and that many segregationist Governors found out they had no control over the NG. But this is what you can do when you own the culture industry.

    Now they just claim that Amdt. II either only protects "muskets" (an argument that has actually shown up in Law Reviews) or that it never precludes Mexican-style regulation that nullfies any sense of a "right".

    Again, impunity.

    A serious government would start by ordering Harvard, Yale and Stanford Law to implement partisan and ideological quotas. Or else get the Henry VIII solution.
  50. @Mr. Rational

    What I don’t understand is how they fail to recognize that all the other amendments, which they at least claim to care about, are meaningless if only the government has guns.
     
    That's very simple:  their concern is fake.  They want power, and for NO ONE to have any rights which restrict their exercise (abuse) of that power.  All their concern-trolling about "rights" is to arrogate more power to themselves.

    The only gun control law that liberals would oppose in theory would be one that specifically barred either blacks or communists from firearms ownership.

    No US liberal to my knowledge has ever labed a European or Asian gun control regime as “tyrannical”.

    In fact, many consider it insulting that “hunting guns” have to be preserved, and consider this an act of reckless generosity.

    Indeed, not that long ago the left was claiming that Amdt. II was solely about respecting the rights of states to maintain the National Guard. This was quite the leap, considering that the NG was only created in 1903, and that many segregationist Governors found out they had no control over the NG. But this is what you can do when you own the culture industry.

    Now they just claim that Amdt. II either only protects “muskets” (an argument that has actually shown up in Law Reviews) or that it never precludes Mexican-style regulation that nullfies any sense of a “right”.

    Again, impunity.

    A serious government would start by ordering Harvard, Yale and Stanford Law to implement partisan and ideological quotas. Or else get the Henry VIII solution.

  51. @216
    The solution to a gun ban is not .223

    The solution is 2-26

    Hahahaha……..
    Your comment will appear after approval from the schoolmarm. Approval of a comment emphatically does NOT imply an endorsement of its contents by the authors of this blog or by The Unz Review.”
    Who the FUCK is the schoolmarm?

    At last.

    Hahaha…….Good work.
    Oh my.

    Hilarious.

  52. @Not my Economy
    It's kind of encouraging that they are so obsessed with guns.

    From where I sit, it looks like they've already fucked us on the deeper level, the ability to trust and operate as a group. Maybe they think we'll start to figure it out.

    A dude with a henry lever action, a casio wristwatch and a buddy he trusts to drive the getaway car and be his alibi is more dangerous than 100 guys with 3 tricked out AR-15s each who all think the rest of the guys are feds.

    Now…should I pass that school marmalade censorship….I mean moderation, here it is:

    I hear you.

    Could change a bit:

    A dude with a SMLE/M1903 Springfield/Mauser 98/Mosin–Nagant, customized, optics, a casio wristwatch and alone (not telling a living soul, ever) is more dangerous than 100 guys with 3 tricked out AR-15s each who all think the rest of the guys are feds.
    It’s all about OPSEC, target selection and one-shot placement.

  53. @Futurethirdworlder
    In America guns are only legal where they aren't needed. I don't think it's guns keeping rural whites safe. It's that the only people around are rural whites.

    And the only thing gun legislation in cities has accomplished is making city dwelling whites defenseless.

    To a large extent, you are correct: it’s the demographics of white rural America that keep it as safe as it is. But you’re overlooking natural hazards such as poisonous snakes (the number one reason we used guns when I lived in the country), vicious dogs, rabid animals, and in certain areas, perhaps a hungry mountain lion or bear. Also, and most dangerous of all, there are occasional human predators who’ve noticed that law enforcement is unlikely to respond quickly to a call from a rural dwelling.

    If you’ve ever found yourself in a an iffy situation, alone in a rural area, you realize acutely that no one will be coming to save you: not quickly, at least. If there is any saving to be done in the meantime, you’ll have to do it yourself.

  54. @APilgrim
    ‘145 Business Leaders Urge Congress To Enact Gun Control Legislation In Joint Letter’, Lisette Voytko, Forbes Staff, Sep 12, 2019, 08:57am, https://www.forbes.com/sites/lisettevoytko/2019/09/12/145-business-leaders-urge-congress-for-gun-control-in-joint-letter/#1d395d1d6ec3

    Executives from Uber, Twitter, Levi Strauss, plus 142 more, sent a letter to the Senate Thursday urgently requesting it enact gun control bills already introduced in the House, in what might be the most cohesive effort from American businesses to advance firearms legislation. The letter calls for expanded background checks on all gun sales, and red flag laws,which would keep guns out of the hands of at-risk people.

    Below is the complete list of signatures:

    Organizations with more than 500 employees:

    Brian Chesky, Cofounder, Head of Community and CEO, Airbnb
    Keith Mestrich, President and CEO, Amalgamated Bank
    John Connaughton and Jonathan Lavine, Co-Managing Partners, and Josh Bekenstein and Steve Pagliuca, Co-Chairmen, Bain Capital
    Ethan Brown, Cofounder and CEO, Beyond Meat
    Peter T. Grauer, Chairman, Bloomberg LP
    Ric Clark, Chairman, Brookfield Property Group
    Fritz Lanman, CEO, ClassPass
    Roger Lynch, CEO, Condé Nast
    Ken Lin, Founder and CEO, Credit Karma
    Edward Stack, CEO, DICK'S Sporting Goods
    Tony Xu, Cofounder and CEO, DoorDash
    Doug Baker, Chairman and CEO, Ecolab
    Richard Edelman, President and CEO, Edelman
    Julia Hartz, Co-Founder and CEO, Eventbrite
    Art Peck, CEO, Gap Inc.
    Eddy Lu, CEO, Goat Group
    Ben Lerer, Cofounder and CEO, Group Nine Media
    Yannick Bolloré, CEO, Havas Group
    Bill Koenigsberg, President, CEO and Founder, Horizon Media
    Patrick O. Brown, M.D., Ph.D., Founder and CEO, Impossible Foods
    Michael Roth, Chairman and CEO, Interpublic
    Rob Frohwein, Cofounder and CEO, and Kathryn Petralia, Cofounder and President, Kabbage Inc. and Drum Technologies
    Chip Bergh, President and CEO, Levi Strauss & Co.
    Logan Green, Cofounder and CEO, and John Zimmer, Co-Founder and President, Lyft
    Dev Ittycheria, President and CEO, MongoDB, Inc.
    Howard Marks, Co-Chairman, Oaktree Capital Management
    Todd McKinnon, Co-Founder and CEO, Okta
    John Wren, Chairman and CEO, Omnicom Group
    Ben Silbermann, Cofounder and CEO, Pinterest
    Bastian Lehmann, Cofounder & CEO, Postmates
    Hamid R. Moghadam, Chairman and CEO, Prologis
    Arthur Sadoun, Chairman and CEO, Publicis Groupe
    Steve Huffman, CEO, Reddit
    Richard Fain, CEO, Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd.
    Scott Rechler, Chairman and CEO, RXR Realty
    Jon Oringer, Founder and CEO, Shutterstock, Inc.
    Jack Dorsey, CEO, Square and Twitter
    Anthony Casalena, Founder and CEO, Squarespace
    Zander Lurie, CEO, SurveyMonkey
    Arianna Huffington, Founder and CEO, Thrive Global
    Blake Mycoskie, Founder and Chief Shoe Giver, and Jim Alling, CEO, TOMS
    Jeff Lawson, Cofounder and CEO, Twilio
    Dara Khosrowshahi, CEO, Uber
    Mark Read, CEO, WPP
    Jeremy Stoppelman, Cofounder and CEO, Yelp

    Organizations with fewer than 500 employees:

    Kevin P. Ryan, Founder and CEO, AlleyCorp
    Travis Truett, Cofounder and CEO, Ambition
    John W. Rogers, Jr., Founder, Chairman and Co-CEO, and Mellody Hobson, Co-CEO & President, Ariel Investments, LLC
    Mike Steib, CEO, Artsy
    Sean Knapp, Cofounder and CEO, Ascend.io
    Andrei Cherny, Cofounder and CEO, Aspiration
    Abdur Chowdhury, CEO, Aura
    Fahim M. Aziz, Founder and CEO, Backpack
    JJ Abrams, Chairman and Co-CEO, and Katie McGrath, Co-CEO, Bad Robot
    Ari Paparo, CEO, BeeswaxIO Corporation
    Ryan Block, Cofounder, Begin
    John Borthwick, Founder and CEO, Betaworks
    Raphael Crawford-Marks, Cofounder and CEO, Bonusly
    Darren Lachtman, Cofounder, Brat
    Trevor McFedries, CEO, Brud
    Sameer Shariff, Cofounder, Cambly
    Analisa Goodin, Founder and CEO, Catch&Release, Inc.
    Andrew Feldman, Founder and CEO, Cerebras Systems
    George Favvas, CEO, Circle Medical
    Alex MacCaw, CEO, Clearbit
    Tyler Bosmeny, CEO, Clever
    Matt Martin, Cofounder and CEO, Clockwise
    Othman Laraki, Cofounder and CEO, Color Genomics
    Jager McConnell, CEO, Crunchbase, Inc.
    Apu Gupta, Cofounder and CEO, Curalate, Inc.
    David Oates, Cofounder and CEO, Curtsy
    Brian Ree, Founder and CEO, DAILYLOOK
    Saurabh Ladha, CEO, Doxel, Inc.
    Andy Coravos, Cofounder and CEO, Elektra Labs
    Laurene Powell Jobs, President, Emerson Collective
    Pradeep Elankumaran, Cofounder & CEO, Farmstead
    Desiree Gruber, CEO, Full Picture
    Jared Hecht, Founder and CEO, Fundera
    Jude Gomila, Founder and CEO, Golden
    Rick Nucci, Cofounder and CEO, Guru
    Kara Goldin, Founder and CEO, Hint, Inc.
    Jeff Sellinger, Cofounder and CEO, HipDot
    Prerna Gupta, CEO, Hooked
    Cyrus Massoumi, Managing Partner, humbition
    Kristin Savilia, CEO, JOOR
    Pierre Valade, CEO, Jumbo Privacy
    William Martino, Founder and CEO, Kadena
    Jake Perlman-Garr, CEO, Kanga
    Warren Shaeffer, Cofounder and CEO, Knowable
    Jack Altman, CEO, Lattice
    Aaron N. Block, Cofounder and Managing Director, MetaProp.vc
    Afton Vechery, Cofounder and CEO, Modern Fertility
    Dan Parham, Founder and CEO, and Tee Parham, Founder and CTO, Neighborland
    Shafqat Islam, CEO, NewsCred
    Sarah Friar, CEO, Nextdoor
    Athan Stephanopoulos, President, NowThis
    Varsha Rao, CEO, Nurx
    William E. Oberndorf, Chairman, Oberndorf Enterprises
    Steven Rosenblatt, Cofounder and General Partner, Oceans
    Nick Huzar, Cofounder and CEO, OfferUp
    James Segil, Cofounder and President, Openpath
    Jordan Husney, CEO, Parabol
    Doug Aley, CEO, Paravision
    John Milinovich, CEO, Plato Design
    Rajat Suri, CEO, Presto
    Christopher Gavigan, Founder and CEO, Prima
    Adam Regelmann, Founder and COO, Quartzy
    Nate Maslak, Cofounder and CEO, and Nate Fox, Co-Founder and CTO, Ribbon Health
    Zachariah Reitano, Cofounder and CEO, Ro
    Gary Beasley, Cofounder and CEO, Roofstock
    Stephen Ehikian, Cofounder and CEO, Ruist
    Brian Schechter, CEO, SelfMade
    Olga Vidisheva, Founder and CEO, Shoptiques Inc.
    Dan Doctoroff, CEO, Sidewalk Labs
    Jason Tan, CEO, Sift
    Matt Cooper, CEO, Skillshare
    Grant Jordan, CEO, SkySafe
    Josh Guttman, Cofounder and CEO and Florent Peyre, Co-Founder and President, Small Door
    Michael Carvin, Cofounder and CEO, SmartAsset
    Aaron King, Founder and CEO, Snapdocs, Inc.
    Neil Capel, CEO, Solve.io
    Ben Hindman, Cofounder and CEO, Splash
    Evan Beard, Founder and CEO, Standard Bots
    Stanlee R. Gatti, Founder, Stanlee R. Gatti Designs
    Bradford Oberwager, CEO, Sundia Corporation
    Ross Feinstein, CEO, Sunlight Health
    Paul Budnitz, CEO, Superplastic
    Ron Conway, Founder, SV Angel
    Heidi Zak, Cofounder and Co-CEO, and David Spector, Co-Founder and Co-CEO, ThirdLove
    Yashar Nejati, CEO, thisopenspace inc.
    Joshua Kushner, Founder and Managing Partner, Thrive Capital
    Chris Wang, CEO, ThunderCore Inc.
    Corbett Kull, CEO, Tillable
    Meghan Jewitt, CEO, Uniform Teeth
    Nicholas Goldner, Cofounder and CEO, and Christopher Bulow, Co-Founder and COO,
    Viosera Therapeutics
    Ken Chong, CEO, Virtual Kitchen Co
    Irv Remedios, CEO, Voxer
    Oliver Cameron, Cofounder and CEO, Voyage
    Chase Adam, Cofounder and CEO, and Grace Garey, Co-Founder and COO, Watsi
    Liz Wessel, Cofounder and CEO, WayUp
    Neil Waller, CEO, Whalar
    Bismarck Lepe, CEO, Wizeline
    Dennis R. Mortensen, Founder and CEO, x.ai, inc.
    Geoff Ralston, President, Y Combinator
    Shan-Lyn Ma, Cofounder and CEO, Zola

    John Connaughton and Jonathan Lavine, Co-Managing Partners, and Josh Bekenstein and Steve Pagliuca, Co-Chairmen, Bain Capital

    Mittens Romney’s outfit.

    Figures.

  55. @APilgrim
    ‘145 Business Leaders Urge Congress To Enact Gun Control Legislation In Joint Letter’, Lisette Voytko, Forbes Staff, Sep 12, 2019, 08:57am, https://www.forbes.com/sites/lisettevoytko/2019/09/12/145-business-leaders-urge-congress-for-gun-control-in-joint-letter/#1d395d1d6ec3

    Executives from Uber, Twitter, Levi Strauss, plus 142 more, sent a letter to the Senate Thursday urgently requesting it enact gun control bills already introduced in the House, in what might be the most cohesive effort from American businesses to advance firearms legislation. The letter calls for expanded background checks on all gun sales, and red flag laws,which would keep guns out of the hands of at-risk people.

    Below is the complete list of signatures:

    Organizations with more than 500 employees:

    Brian Chesky, Cofounder, Head of Community and CEO, Airbnb
    Keith Mestrich, President and CEO, Amalgamated Bank
    John Connaughton and Jonathan Lavine, Co-Managing Partners, and Josh Bekenstein and Steve Pagliuca, Co-Chairmen, Bain Capital
    Ethan Brown, Cofounder and CEO, Beyond Meat
    Peter T. Grauer, Chairman, Bloomberg LP
    Ric Clark, Chairman, Brookfield Property Group
    Fritz Lanman, CEO, ClassPass
    Roger Lynch, CEO, Condé Nast
    Ken Lin, Founder and CEO, Credit Karma
    Edward Stack, CEO, DICK'S Sporting Goods
    Tony Xu, Cofounder and CEO, DoorDash
    Doug Baker, Chairman and CEO, Ecolab
    Richard Edelman, President and CEO, Edelman
    Julia Hartz, Co-Founder and CEO, Eventbrite
    Art Peck, CEO, Gap Inc.
    Eddy Lu, CEO, Goat Group
    Ben Lerer, Cofounder and CEO, Group Nine Media
    Yannick Bolloré, CEO, Havas Group
    Bill Koenigsberg, President, CEO and Founder, Horizon Media
    Patrick O. Brown, M.D., Ph.D., Founder and CEO, Impossible Foods
    Michael Roth, Chairman and CEO, Interpublic
    Rob Frohwein, Cofounder and CEO, and Kathryn Petralia, Cofounder and President, Kabbage Inc. and Drum Technologies
    Chip Bergh, President and CEO, Levi Strauss & Co.
    Logan Green, Cofounder and CEO, and John Zimmer, Co-Founder and President, Lyft
    Dev Ittycheria, President and CEO, MongoDB, Inc.
    Howard Marks, Co-Chairman, Oaktree Capital Management
    Todd McKinnon, Co-Founder and CEO, Okta
    John Wren, Chairman and CEO, Omnicom Group
    Ben Silbermann, Cofounder and CEO, Pinterest
    Bastian Lehmann, Cofounder & CEO, Postmates
    Hamid R. Moghadam, Chairman and CEO, Prologis
    Arthur Sadoun, Chairman and CEO, Publicis Groupe
    Steve Huffman, CEO, Reddit
    Richard Fain, CEO, Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd.
    Scott Rechler, Chairman and CEO, RXR Realty
    Jon Oringer, Founder and CEO, Shutterstock, Inc.
    Jack Dorsey, CEO, Square and Twitter
    Anthony Casalena, Founder and CEO, Squarespace
    Zander Lurie, CEO, SurveyMonkey
    Arianna Huffington, Founder and CEO, Thrive Global
    Blake Mycoskie, Founder and Chief Shoe Giver, and Jim Alling, CEO, TOMS
    Jeff Lawson, Cofounder and CEO, Twilio
    Dara Khosrowshahi, CEO, Uber
    Mark Read, CEO, WPP
    Jeremy Stoppelman, Cofounder and CEO, Yelp

    Organizations with fewer than 500 employees:

    Kevin P. Ryan, Founder and CEO, AlleyCorp
    Travis Truett, Cofounder and CEO, Ambition
    John W. Rogers, Jr., Founder, Chairman and Co-CEO, and Mellody Hobson, Co-CEO & President, Ariel Investments, LLC
    Mike Steib, CEO, Artsy
    Sean Knapp, Cofounder and CEO, Ascend.io
    Andrei Cherny, Cofounder and CEO, Aspiration
    Abdur Chowdhury, CEO, Aura
    Fahim M. Aziz, Founder and CEO, Backpack
    JJ Abrams, Chairman and Co-CEO, and Katie McGrath, Co-CEO, Bad Robot
    Ari Paparo, CEO, BeeswaxIO Corporation
    Ryan Block, Cofounder, Begin
    John Borthwick, Founder and CEO, Betaworks
    Raphael Crawford-Marks, Cofounder and CEO, Bonusly
    Darren Lachtman, Cofounder, Brat
    Trevor McFedries, CEO, Brud
    Sameer Shariff, Cofounder, Cambly
    Analisa Goodin, Founder and CEO, Catch&Release, Inc.
    Andrew Feldman, Founder and CEO, Cerebras Systems
    George Favvas, CEO, Circle Medical
    Alex MacCaw, CEO, Clearbit
    Tyler Bosmeny, CEO, Clever
    Matt Martin, Cofounder and CEO, Clockwise
    Othman Laraki, Cofounder and CEO, Color Genomics
    Jager McConnell, CEO, Crunchbase, Inc.
    Apu Gupta, Cofounder and CEO, Curalate, Inc.
    David Oates, Cofounder and CEO, Curtsy
    Brian Ree, Founder and CEO, DAILYLOOK
    Saurabh Ladha, CEO, Doxel, Inc.
    Andy Coravos, Cofounder and CEO, Elektra Labs
    Laurene Powell Jobs, President, Emerson Collective
    Pradeep Elankumaran, Cofounder & CEO, Farmstead
    Desiree Gruber, CEO, Full Picture
    Jared Hecht, Founder and CEO, Fundera
    Jude Gomila, Founder and CEO, Golden
    Rick Nucci, Cofounder and CEO, Guru
    Kara Goldin, Founder and CEO, Hint, Inc.
    Jeff Sellinger, Cofounder and CEO, HipDot
    Prerna Gupta, CEO, Hooked
    Cyrus Massoumi, Managing Partner, humbition
    Kristin Savilia, CEO, JOOR
    Pierre Valade, CEO, Jumbo Privacy
    William Martino, Founder and CEO, Kadena
    Jake Perlman-Garr, CEO, Kanga
    Warren Shaeffer, Cofounder and CEO, Knowable
    Jack Altman, CEO, Lattice
    Aaron N. Block, Cofounder and Managing Director, MetaProp.vc
    Afton Vechery, Cofounder and CEO, Modern Fertility
    Dan Parham, Founder and CEO, and Tee Parham, Founder and CTO, Neighborland
    Shafqat Islam, CEO, NewsCred
    Sarah Friar, CEO, Nextdoor
    Athan Stephanopoulos, President, NowThis
    Varsha Rao, CEO, Nurx
    William E. Oberndorf, Chairman, Oberndorf Enterprises
    Steven Rosenblatt, Cofounder and General Partner, Oceans
    Nick Huzar, Cofounder and CEO, OfferUp
    James Segil, Cofounder and President, Openpath
    Jordan Husney, CEO, Parabol
    Doug Aley, CEO, Paravision
    John Milinovich, CEO, Plato Design
    Rajat Suri, CEO, Presto
    Christopher Gavigan, Founder and CEO, Prima
    Adam Regelmann, Founder and COO, Quartzy
    Nate Maslak, Cofounder and CEO, and Nate Fox, Co-Founder and CTO, Ribbon Health
    Zachariah Reitano, Cofounder and CEO, Ro
    Gary Beasley, Cofounder and CEO, Roofstock
    Stephen Ehikian, Cofounder and CEO, Ruist
    Brian Schechter, CEO, SelfMade
    Olga Vidisheva, Founder and CEO, Shoptiques Inc.
    Dan Doctoroff, CEO, Sidewalk Labs
    Jason Tan, CEO, Sift
    Matt Cooper, CEO, Skillshare
    Grant Jordan, CEO, SkySafe
    Josh Guttman, Cofounder and CEO and Florent Peyre, Co-Founder and President, Small Door
    Michael Carvin, Cofounder and CEO, SmartAsset
    Aaron King, Founder and CEO, Snapdocs, Inc.
    Neil Capel, CEO, Solve.io
    Ben Hindman, Cofounder and CEO, Splash
    Evan Beard, Founder and CEO, Standard Bots
    Stanlee R. Gatti, Founder, Stanlee R. Gatti Designs
    Bradford Oberwager, CEO, Sundia Corporation
    Ross Feinstein, CEO, Sunlight Health
    Paul Budnitz, CEO, Superplastic
    Ron Conway, Founder, SV Angel
    Heidi Zak, Cofounder and Co-CEO, and David Spector, Co-Founder and Co-CEO, ThirdLove
    Yashar Nejati, CEO, thisopenspace inc.
    Joshua Kushner, Founder and Managing Partner, Thrive Capital
    Chris Wang, CEO, ThunderCore Inc.
    Corbett Kull, CEO, Tillable
    Meghan Jewitt, CEO, Uniform Teeth
    Nicholas Goldner, Cofounder and CEO, and Christopher Bulow, Co-Founder and COO,
    Viosera Therapeutics
    Ken Chong, CEO, Virtual Kitchen Co
    Irv Remedios, CEO, Voxer
    Oliver Cameron, Cofounder and CEO, Voyage
    Chase Adam, Cofounder and CEO, and Grace Garey, Co-Founder and COO, Watsi
    Liz Wessel, Cofounder and CEO, WayUp
    Neil Waller, CEO, Whalar
    Bismarck Lepe, CEO, Wizeline
    Dennis R. Mortensen, Founder and CEO, x.ai, inc.
    Geoff Ralston, President, Y Combinator
    Shan-Lyn Ma, Cofounder and CEO, Zola

    Well, yeah. That’s why I just don’t give any money into the system, unless it’s to a white, locally owned family business.

    Pay a few extra bucks to stay at a BnB , so you don’t use AirBnB.

    Corporations are not on your side. Starve the beast. Eat at home, buy only healthy food and the basics. Haggle for the cheapest prices. Price Match.

    • Agree: Achmed E. Newman
  56. What’s the solution? As the country is currently constituted, there isn’t one. Devolve it to the states or, better yet, devolve the empire into several separate countries

    This doesn’t work.  The divide is not between regions or states, as the slavery question was.  The divide is rural/urban, and the inner-urban regions are overwhelmingly unproductive and parasitic upon both the suburban and rural zones.  As the urban zones are not territorially contiguous, a breakup means they operate as city-states or die trying.

    The inner-urban zones cannot make it on their own; they produce no food, no fuel, no other raw materials, and the underclasses no longer participate in industry either.  They are pure deadweight losses and nobody is going to accept them in a split; Red America wants nothing to do with them and Blue America won’t even need them as farmed voters if they no longer need to out-vote the Red Americans.  They will have literally outlived their usefulness, so the most likely outcome is Cambodia II.

    Yes, it’s going to get ugly.  But this is the inevitable logic of the situation we’ve been pushed into.  What we need to do is correctly assign the blame to (((the elites))) who engineered it, and refuse to take it upon ourselves.  All we are doing is guaranteeing our own survival, which we have both the moral right and obligation to do.

  57. @Feryl

    Whites need guns because blacks are more muscular and more aggressive.
     
    So, that's why there are no white offensive line-men, strong-men, body builders, heavy weight boxers, and wrestlers.

    News flash: Northern Europeans are, on average, as physically large as American blacks. Because so many white doofuses only understand blacks through sports, then well I suppose it's logical to assume that blacks are taller, wider, and stronger than American whites.

    Blacks have more fast twitch muscle fibers, which translates to blacks being able to sprint short distances faster than whites. It also translates to non-tired blacks being able to punch harder than whites. But the trade-off is that blacks tire faster than whites, something that's quite important in boxing and other combat sports. American whites dominate collegiate wrestling and do pretty well in MMA. Fewer and fewer American whites have boxed since, what, the 1950's? But Eastern European whites have done quite well in international boxing since the dissolution of the Soviet Union (leading to complaints from cucked Western journalists that boxing has gotten more "boring").

    Why do so many nerdy Western whites automatically assume that American blacks are athletic ubermensch? If we define athleticism as "runs in a straight line for 100 yrds at a high rate of speed", then sure, I suppose blacks are gifted athletes. However, in terms of size, strength, speed, stamina, hand-eye coordination etc. I think you could make a valid argument that Northern Europeans are the best all around athletes (notably, West Africans sprint fast, East African do long distance running well, while Europeans do the mid-distance running very well; whites are the jack of all trades athletes).

    One thing that America is going to regret is spoiling it's once admirable ethnic mixture of fine athleticism; American whites, American blacks, and American Indians (e.g. America of pre-1970) are all fairly large and athletic ethnic groups. Asians, Central American natives, mestizos, and other such New Americans are all going to bring down the average level of size and athleticism within America.

    Lastly, whites take longer to physically develop than blacks. So a lot of well-built 35 year old white guys were quite a bit smaller when they were in high school. This hurts them relative to black athletes; one reason coaches started to favor black recruits is because they physically mature at least 25% faster than whites.

    Good summary of white vs. black athletic/fighting ability factors. I would add the fact that black assailants hunt in packs. I remember seeing a youtube of a white guy, a wrestler, shooting (pardon the pun) a great takedown on his assailant…but within seconds, the assailant’s colleagues were kicking the white guy, next stop, emergency room. (where, if you are here in Calif, get ready for a 5-hour wait).

  58. @anarchyst
    CPL holders are MORE proficient with weaponry than almost all police officers. Police officers typically "qualify" with their service weapons once a year, and see weapons training as a nuisance to be tolerated.

    As CPL holders have NO "qualified immunity" protections, they are MORE careful to avoid situations that could mean "trouble" for them.

    Changes in “immunity” laws are needed. Concealed weapons permit holders should be covered under the same immunity from prosecution laws that police officers and other public officials enjoy.

    An armed citizen should be able to defend his own life and the life of others, but without changes in immunity laws, concealed weapons permit holders are rightfully reluctant to act.

    Even the present “stand your ground” concept is not enough, as prosecutors still can and do go after those non-police citizens who “feared for their lives”.

    What I would like to see is CPL holders have the SAME immunity that police and prosecutor have.

    THAT, in itself, would level the “playing field”, and would work, putting those who would do harm on notice that there are armed citizens who WILL “stop the threat”. Look for prosecutors and police to oppose such a move…but one can hope…

    Great comment, Anarchyst! I was just writing yesterday (in this post) that we wouldn’t even be discussing this 9/11 attack every year if Americans hadn’t already been getting disarmed for years upon boarding airliners.

    You are absolutely right that the CPL holders (or non-holders) are much more responsible than cops.

    1) They have a lot more to lose by being rash. A cop will get a paid suspension for something that’ll get a regular American 10 years in prison.

    2) Regular Americans practice (being “regulated”, as in “in practice” per US Constitution Amend. II). Do you remember the cops taking 9 or 11 shots at a guy in downtown NY City and missing him from say 5 yards? They missed the “perp” – not sure about all the bystanders.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    BTW, please let's not get started on 9/11 theories in this thread. I am not stating that I'm absolutely sure of ANY government story (see 1st paragraph of my post), but I'm writing under that assumption.
    , @Joe Stalin
    Remember, NYC Police regulations mandate use of a modified trigger on their Glock pistols:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FcxHYSn813A

  59. @Achmed E. Newman
    Great comment, Anarchyst! I was just writing yesterday (in this post) that we wouldn't even be discussing this 9/11 attack every year if Americans hadn't already been getting disarmed for years upon boarding airliners.

    You are absolutely right that the CPL holders (or non-holders) are much more responsible than cops.

    1) They have a lot more to lose by being rash. A cop will get a paid suspension for something that'll get a regular American 10 years in prison.

    2) Regular Americans practice (being "regulated", as in "in practice" per US Constitution Amend. II). Do you remember the cops taking 9 or 11 shots at a guy in downtown NY City and missing him from say 5 yards? They missed the "perp" - not sure about all the bystanders.

    BTW, please let’s not get started on 9/11 theories in this thread. I am not stating that I’m absolutely sure of ANY government story (see 1st paragraph of my post), but I’m writing under that assumption.

  60. @Achmed E. Newman
    Great comment, Anarchyst! I was just writing yesterday (in this post) that we wouldn't even be discussing this 9/11 attack every year if Americans hadn't already been getting disarmed for years upon boarding airliners.

    You are absolutely right that the CPL holders (or non-holders) are much more responsible than cops.

    1) They have a lot more to lose by being rash. A cop will get a paid suspension for something that'll get a regular American 10 years in prison.

    2) Regular Americans practice (being "regulated", as in "in practice" per US Constitution Amend. II). Do you remember the cops taking 9 or 11 shots at a guy in downtown NY City and missing him from say 5 yards? They missed the "perp" - not sure about all the bystanders.

    Remember, NYC Police regulations mandate use of a modified trigger on their Glock pistols:

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    That was an interesting video, Joe, and I like that guy's way of narrating it. Thanks.
  61. “Red flag” laws and Lenin’s who/whom question:
    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/congress/democrats-frown-on-targeting-gang-databases-with-red-flag-laws

    House Democrats this week advanced a new measure to encourage states to pass “red flag” laws, known as extreme risk protection orders, that authorize removing guns and ammunition from dangerous individuals.

    Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee amended the measure during a Wednesday mark-up to authorize the federal government to issue extreme risk protection orders in some instances, but they rejected an amendment that would have red-flagged anyone who law enforcement lists as a gang member.

    • Replies: @Joe Stalin
    It would be a real hoot seeing LE attempt to round up firearms from hood rats under a fusillade of bullets compared to the expectations of "the smartest people" that confiscation would be New Zealand/Australian/UK white-people-style i.e. surrender all your REGISTERED guns.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_guns_per_capita_by_country
  62. @fnn
    "Red flag" laws and Lenin's who/whom question:
    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/congress/democrats-frown-on-targeting-gang-databases-with-red-flag-laws

    House Democrats this week advanced a new measure to encourage states to pass “red flag” laws, known as extreme risk protection orders, that authorize removing guns and ammunition from dangerous individuals.

    Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee amended the measure during a Wednesday mark-up to authorize the federal government to issue extreme risk protection orders in some instances, but they rejected an amendment that would have red-flagged anyone who law enforcement lists as a gang member.

     


     

     

    It would be a real hoot seeing LE attempt to round up firearms from hood rats under a fusillade of bullets compared to the expectations of “the smartest people” that confiscation would be New Zealand/Australian/UK white-people-style i.e. surrender all your REGISTERED guns.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_guns_per_capita_by_country

  63. @Priss Factor
    Whites need guns because blacks are more muscular and more aggressive.

    This is how blacks feel about whites.

    https://www.bitchute.com/video/RaNX4vLgwBvG/

    “Whites need guns because blacks are more muscular and more aggressive.”

    You keep bouncing around this website pushing the myth of superior negro strength, as well as confusing the definition of aggression with poor impulse control. You should stop.

  64. @J1234
    I was just over at Slate complaining that their headline incorrectly and misleadingly called the "my AR-15 is ready for you" statement by a Texas lawmaker to Beto a "death threat." In no context can be construed as a death threat..no more than a NRA t-shirt that says "I will defend the 2nd Amend with the 2nd Amend" can be construed a death threat. Neither of those things are death threats because (among many other reasons) President Beto won't personally confiscate weapons (should it come to that) therefore he won't be the person exposed to risk during confiscation. Slate calls it a death threat (no quote marks) because Beto calls it a death threat, defaulting to pathos over logos.

    The reaction among the Slate commentariat was predictable, yet I'm always amazed at the extent to which SJW's embrace the lies that are interwoven through the leftist mythology that they embrace. When I ask why the Texas guy wasn't arrested since he was making (by their account) a "death threat", some commenter (who sort of presents himself as a lawyer) says something like these kind of laws aren't enforced consistently. He then tries to tie some notion of Beto being a federal agent to some lower legal hurdle within which an intimidating statement can be considered a death threat...but then drifts to the fact that Beto is no longer a federal agent as an explanation why the Texas guy wasn't arrested, contradicting himself on multiple levels. And he's one of the SMART ones over there.

    There are many times that I think Right and Left simply have different perspectives on things, but I'm frequently reminded - through face to face interactions - that the Left has a genuine problem with the truth a disturbing amount of the time.

    I was just over at Slate complaining that their headline incorrectly and misleadingly called the “my AR-15 is ready for you” statement by a Texas lawmaker to Beto a “death threat.”

    Sorry to hear it but anyone reading pro-state Slate is probably a lost cause.

    Wear this and watch SJW heads explode:

  65. @Joe Stalin
    Remember, NYC Police regulations mandate use of a modified trigger on their Glock pistols:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FcxHYSn813A

    That was an interesting video, Joe, and I like that guy’s way of narrating it. Thanks.

  66. Murder isn’t the only gun-related tragedy; rural states with high gun ownership rates often have high suicide rates as well

    Give black men guns and they’re more likely to kill each other. Give white men guns and they’re more likely to kill themselves. Perhaps only women should be allowed to own firearms?

  67. @iffen
    It makes no difference whether it is Twinkie, Rosie or countless others, it's: race, race, race.

    All of us know about race, race, race. What we need to know more about is solutions, solutions, solutions.

    “What we need to know more about is solutions”

    We can start by acknowledging that multi-racial societies breed discontent. This is a good forum for solutions. You’re an intelligent guy (or gal): Let’s hear yours.

    • Replies: @peterAUS
    National-Socialism.

    The core, fundamentals, taken from the usual source. The easy part.
    The hard part: heavily IMPROVED/CUSTOMIZED version for the time and place.

    To start with, getting rid of the Fuhrer principle. Immediately after, getting rid of the ...ahm...attitude towards Slavs, Russians in particular.
    Easy...
    JQ, well..let's just say that shouldn't be as "then", but mustn't be, DEFINITELY, as it is now. Let's leave it there.
    99% of alt-whatever likes to focus on that. Understandable.
    Other races similar.

    Hard:
    (Re)solving the issue of modern technology, automation in particular related to the nature of work and making a living.
    1% of alt-whatever thinks about this. Understandable.
    Etc.

    Hehe..see any intention to do that in alt-whatever?
    More importantly, see any mental capacity there for the task?

    So, the "solution" is actually easy: see how the underclass lives in Brasil as we speak. That's the, almost certain, future for 98% of us commenting/reading here.
    Almost.

    , @iffen
    Let’s hear yours.

    Post Trump, the populist core fights off the Romneyite/Koch brothers wing for control of the Republican Party. Offering policies like fair trade for Americans, increased education spending for technical training (no more basket weaving degrees on the public's dime), an immigration policy that emphasizes immediate control of the borders while ignoring past immigration (at least from 5 years and back), and a restricted UBI that insures health care and retirement security for every American will give control of the House and drawing on our strength increase our share of the non-white vote for an enduring electoral power.

  68. @SunBakedSuburb
    "What we need to know more about is solutions"

    We can start by acknowledging that multi-racial societies breed discontent. This is a good forum for solutions. You're an intelligent guy (or gal): Let's hear yours.

    National-Socialism.

    The core, fundamentals, taken from the usual source. The easy part.
    The hard part: heavily IMPROVED/CUSTOMIZED version for the time and place.

    To start with, getting rid of the Fuhrer principle. Immediately after, getting rid of the …ahm…attitude towards Slavs, Russians in particular.
    Easy…
    JQ, well..let’s just say that shouldn’t be as “then”, but mustn’t be, DEFINITELY, as it is now. Let’s leave it there.
    99% of alt-whatever likes to focus on that. Understandable.
    Other races similar.

    Hard:
    (Re)solving the issue of modern technology, automation in particular related to the nature of work and making a living.
    1% of alt-whatever thinks about this. Understandable.
    Etc.

    Hehe..see any intention to do that in alt-whatever?
    More importantly, see any mental capacity there for the task?

    So, the “solution” is actually easy: see how the underclass lives in Brasil as we speak. That’s the, almost certain, future for 98% of us commenting/reading here.
    Almost.

    • Disagree: iffen
  69. @SunBakedSuburb
    "What we need to know more about is solutions"

    We can start by acknowledging that multi-racial societies breed discontent. This is a good forum for solutions. You're an intelligent guy (or gal): Let's hear yours.

    Let’s hear yours.

    Post Trump, the populist core fights off the Romneyite/Koch brothers wing for control of the Republican Party. Offering policies like fair trade for Americans, increased education spending for technical training (no more basket weaving degrees on the public’s dime), an immigration policy that emphasizes immediate control of the borders while ignoring past immigration (at least from 5 years and back), and a restricted UBI that insures health care and retirement security for every American will give control of the House and drawing on our strength increase our share of the non-white vote for an enduring electoral power.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    Sounds good, but...

    health care and retirement security for every American
     
    That’s a fantasy, given that the labor participation rate keeps shrinking, which means the ever-smaller fraction of the productive has to be taxed at ever higher rates in order to give “security” to the unproductive.
  70. Anonymous[251] • Disclaimer says:

    Yes, this article is very true, but honest that there isn’t a solution.

    So many things that work OK, good, not bad in small town, rural White areas just don’t work in a big city.

    Things like pretty much any kind of guns, private gun ownership wouldn’t work well or at all in a big city even if it was populated by White Europeans.

    The population density of a Manhattan or San Francisco doesn’t allow for everyone to own huge pick up trucks with gun racks, people having target ranges in their backyards = there isn’t room for anyone to have a private backyard.

    It’s the same with other Amucikun Conservative no compromise issues like pro life, the Judeo Christian religion, the Constitution etc.

    In big, big cities – especially big 3rd world cities in Brazil, Africa, Indonesia, Venezuela – the American Conservative Judeo Christian, Guns, Pro Life, COnstitution – it just doesn’t work.

    Anybody here want the population of Haiti, Lagos Nigeria, Mogadeshu to double and triple and have everyone riding around in SUVs with AK47s? If so, Mogadeshu in Black Hawk Down should be a Conservative Libertarian paradise, instead of the Hell on Earth it was, is.

    • Replies: @Joe Stalin
    Yeah right.

    The Evil AK-47, full automatic Assault Rifle which will immediately cause it's owners to become KILLERS when owned by non-whites!!!

    AFTER THE WAR: BAGHDAD; Iraqi Civilians Allowed To Keep Assault Rifles

    "Today's developments highlighted the contradictory demands of restoring security in Iraq. On the one hand, American officials are urgently trying to restore law and order by building police forces and banning weapons. At the same time, law-abiding Iraqis are vociferously complaining that they need to defend their homes and businesses. Potentially undermining all these security efforts is the specter of former high-ranking Baathists who may be seeking to destabilize the country."

    "Asked today whether Iraqis would be allowed to keep assault rifles in their homes, a spokesman for Mr. Bremer said, ''Yes, they will be allowed to keep their AK-47's.''

    "Iraqis will still be allowed to keep handguns, rifles and shotguns."

    https://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/01/world/after-the-war-baghdad-iraqi-civilians-allowed-to-keep-assault-rifles.html
     
    , @Joe Stalin
    "Things like pretty much any kind of guns, private gun ownership wouldn’t work well or at all in a big city even if it was populated by White Europeans."

    Doesn't white Zurich, Switzerland have plenty of assault rifles in the hands of civilians? Don't the gun shops sell full-auto weapons to civilians there?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjlT4BME2aE

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOErri-3Z5E

    "The population density of a Manhattan or San Francisco doesn’t allow for everyone to own huge pick up trucks with gun racks, people having target ranges in their backyards = there isn’t room for anyone to have a private backyard."

    Ever hear of an INDOOR range?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoqgC9OnLcY

    Of course, the Coastal Communists can't have people exercising their Second Amendment rights and drove off the last gun shop in SF.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhH1QQS4_8w
  71. @iffen
    Let’s hear yours.

    Post Trump, the populist core fights off the Romneyite/Koch brothers wing for control of the Republican Party. Offering policies like fair trade for Americans, increased education spending for technical training (no more basket weaving degrees on the public's dime), an immigration policy that emphasizes immediate control of the borders while ignoring past immigration (at least from 5 years and back), and a restricted UBI that insures health care and retirement security for every American will give control of the House and drawing on our strength increase our share of the non-white vote for an enduring electoral power.

    Sounds good, but…

    health care and retirement security for every American

    That’s a fantasy, given that the labor participation rate keeps shrinking, which means the ever-smaller fraction of the productive has to be taxed at ever higher rates in order to give “security” to the unproductive.

    • Agree: Johann Ricke
    • Replies: @iffen
    Doable, not a fantasy.

    Note the "restricted" in my UBI. I would take back a basic retirement allowance from the UBI. Most people would suplement that with further retirement savings. Also, with a UBI in place we would have a lot more older people doing part time work, either because that is their choice or because they failed to put aside additional savings for retirement. But I take your point as valid. The Greatest Generation and the Boomers hit the rising productivity of the economy at the sweet spot.

    As to health care, I would make unhealthy lifestyle choices incur a surcharge on insurance premiums. I know many health plans surcharge smokers. If I couldn't get directly at the individual I would tax tobacco, marijuana, alcohol, sugar and Twinkies, etc. and sent that tax money straight into the health care budget.

    , @Mr. Rational

    given that the labor participation rate keeps shrinking, which means the ever-smaller fraction of the productive has to be taxed at ever higher rates
     
    Tax the robots and software packages according to the value of the labor they replace.  They may still be cheaper overall, but your employment taxes will not decrease as automation replaces humans.
  72. @Twinkie
    Sounds good, but...

    health care and retirement security for every American
     
    That’s a fantasy, given that the labor participation rate keeps shrinking, which means the ever-smaller fraction of the productive has to be taxed at ever higher rates in order to give “security” to the unproductive.

    Doable, not a fantasy.

    Note the “restricted” in my UBI. I would take back a basic retirement allowance from the UBI. Most people would suplement that with further retirement savings. Also, with a UBI in place we would have a lot more older people doing part time work, either because that is their choice or because they failed to put aside additional savings for retirement. But I take your point as valid. The Greatest Generation and the Boomers hit the rising productivity of the economy at the sweet spot.

    As to health care, I would make unhealthy lifestyle choices incur a surcharge on insurance premiums. I know many health plans surcharge smokers. If I couldn’t get directly at the individual I would tax tobacco, marijuana, alcohol, sugar and Twinkies, etc. and sent that tax money straight into the health care budget.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    I would make unhealthy lifestyle choices incur a surcharge on insurance premiums.
     
    If wishes were horses. I share your sentiment, but very little of what you propose is politically feasible. They are less likely than immigration-restrictionism, which at least a majority supports.
  73. @iffen
    Doable, not a fantasy.

    Note the "restricted" in my UBI. I would take back a basic retirement allowance from the UBI. Most people would suplement that with further retirement savings. Also, with a UBI in place we would have a lot more older people doing part time work, either because that is their choice or because they failed to put aside additional savings for retirement. But I take your point as valid. The Greatest Generation and the Boomers hit the rising productivity of the economy at the sweet spot.

    As to health care, I would make unhealthy lifestyle choices incur a surcharge on insurance premiums. I know many health plans surcharge smokers. If I couldn't get directly at the individual I would tax tobacco, marijuana, alcohol, sugar and Twinkies, etc. and sent that tax money straight into the health care budget.

    I would make unhealthy lifestyle choices incur a surcharge on insurance premiums.

    If wishes were horses. I share your sentiment, but very little of what you propose is politically feasible. They are less likely than immigration-restrictionism, which at least a majority supports.

  74. @Anonymous
    Yes, this article is very true, but honest that there isn't a solution.

    So many things that work OK, good, not bad in small town, rural White areas just don't work in a big city.

    Things like pretty much any kind of guns, private gun ownership wouldn't work well or at all in a big city even if it was populated by White Europeans.

    The population density of a Manhattan or San Francisco doesn't allow for everyone to own huge pick up trucks with gun racks, people having target ranges in their backyards = there isn't room for anyone to have a private backyard.

    It's the same with other Amucikun Conservative no compromise issues like pro life, the Judeo Christian religion, the Constitution etc.

    In big, big cities - especially big 3rd world cities in Brazil, Africa, Indonesia, Venezuela - the American Conservative Judeo Christian, Guns, Pro Life, COnstitution - it just doesn't work.

    Anybody here want the population of Haiti, Lagos Nigeria, Mogadeshu to double and triple and have everyone riding around in SUVs with AK47s? If so, Mogadeshu in Black Hawk Down should be a Conservative Libertarian paradise, instead of the Hell on Earth it was, is.

    Yeah right.

    The Evil AK-47, full automatic Assault Rifle which will immediately cause it’s owners to become KILLERS when owned by non-whites!!!

    AFTER THE WAR: BAGHDAD; Iraqi Civilians Allowed To Keep Assault Rifles

    “Today’s developments highlighted the contradictory demands of restoring security in Iraq. On the one hand, American officials are urgently trying to restore law and order by building police forces and banning weapons. At the same time, law-abiding Iraqis are vociferously complaining that they need to defend their homes and businesses. Potentially undermining all these security efforts is the specter of former high-ranking Baathists who may be seeking to destabilize the country.”

    “Asked today whether Iraqis would be allowed to keep assault rifles in their homes, a spokesman for Mr. Bremer said, ”Yes, they will be allowed to keep their AK-47’s.”

    “Iraqis will still be allowed to keep handguns, rifles and shotguns.”

    https://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/01/world/after-the-war-baghdad-iraqi-civilians-allowed-to-keep-assault-rifles.html

  75. @Twinkie
    Sounds good, but...

    health care and retirement security for every American
     
    That’s a fantasy, given that the labor participation rate keeps shrinking, which means the ever-smaller fraction of the productive has to be taxed at ever higher rates in order to give “security” to the unproductive.

    given that the labor participation rate keeps shrinking, which means the ever-smaller fraction of the productive has to be taxed at ever higher rates

    Tax the robots and software packages according to the value of the labor they replace.  They may still be cheaper overall, but your employment taxes will not decrease as automation replaces humans.

  76. @Anonymous
    Yes, this article is very true, but honest that there isn't a solution.

    So many things that work OK, good, not bad in small town, rural White areas just don't work in a big city.

    Things like pretty much any kind of guns, private gun ownership wouldn't work well or at all in a big city even if it was populated by White Europeans.

    The population density of a Manhattan or San Francisco doesn't allow for everyone to own huge pick up trucks with gun racks, people having target ranges in their backyards = there isn't room for anyone to have a private backyard.

    It's the same with other Amucikun Conservative no compromise issues like pro life, the Judeo Christian religion, the Constitution etc.

    In big, big cities - especially big 3rd world cities in Brazil, Africa, Indonesia, Venezuela - the American Conservative Judeo Christian, Guns, Pro Life, COnstitution - it just doesn't work.

    Anybody here want the population of Haiti, Lagos Nigeria, Mogadeshu to double and triple and have everyone riding around in SUVs with AK47s? If so, Mogadeshu in Black Hawk Down should be a Conservative Libertarian paradise, instead of the Hell on Earth it was, is.

    “Things like pretty much any kind of guns, private gun ownership wouldn’t work well or at all in a big city even if it was populated by White Europeans.”

    Doesn’t white Zurich, Switzerland have plenty of assault rifles in the hands of civilians? Don’t the gun shops sell full-auto weapons to civilians there?

    “The population density of a Manhattan or San Francisco doesn’t allow for everyone to own huge pick up trucks with gun racks, people having target ranges in their backyards = there isn’t room for anyone to have a private backyard.”

    Ever hear of an INDOOR range?

    Of course, the Coastal Communists can’t have people exercising their Second Amendment rights and drove off the last gun shop in SF.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS