The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Forum
Why Gun Control Can’t be Solved in the USA

On average, Democrats (that’s my team*) use guns for shooting the innocent. We call that crime.

On average, Republicans use guns for sporting purposes and self-defense.

If you don’t believe me, you can check the statistics on the Internet that don’t exist. At least I couldn’t find any that looked credible.

But we do know that race and poverty are correlated. And we know that poverty and crime are correlated. And we know that race and political affiliation are correlated. Therefore, my team (Clinton) is more likely to use guns to shoot innocent people, whereas the other team (Trump) is more likely to use guns for sporting and defense.

That’s a gross generalization. Obviously. Your town might be totally different.

So it seems to me that gun control can’t be solved because Democrats are using guns to kill each other – and want it to stop – whereas Republicans are using guns to defend against Democrats. Psychologically, those are different risk profiles. And you can’t reconcile those interests, except on the margins. For example, both sides might agree that rocket launchers are a step too far. But Democrats are unlikely to talk Republicans out of gun ownership because it comes off as “Put down your gun so I can shoot you.”

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Gun Control 
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
[Filtered by Reply Thread]
  1. But we do know that race and poverty are correlated. And we know that poverty and crime are correlated. And we know that race and political affiliation are correlated

    We also know that crime rates vary a lot cross-race within each income bracket.
    But who’s going to cast the first stone, if , to keep their job, somebody needs to pretend they don’t know?

    Not I.

    Read More
    • Replies: @another fred
    Somewhere, I think maybe at La Griffe, I saw reference to a "calculation*" that if you normed white and black populations for IQ and testosterone the criminality/incarceration rates were not much different. I.e. the criminality/incarceration rates for whites of IQ X and testosterone level Y were not too different from the rates for blacks with same X and Y.

    It would be nice to live in a world where things like this could be discussed rationally.

    *"Calculation" in quotes because the data upon which to base such a calculation is not really available (mirabile dictu!) and were based on something like the "method of thresholds" as are so many of La Griffe's calculations.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    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.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    http://www.unz.com/forum/why-gun-control-cant-be-solved-in-the-usa/#comment-1483824
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. The guns in the hands of American civilians have killed more fellow Americans per year (over 12,000) than any other country in the world. However, that’s the reason the “Gun Control Lobby” (mostly Jewish organizations) opposes guns in American hands. The real reason is they want to disarm Americans so they don’t challenge the Jewish Lobby government agencies.

    I’m no fan of Barack Hussein Obama. I rarely listen to his speeches which are usually full of religious and political lies except when he delivers them at the NY-based UN Headquarters. On Tuesday, after watching Obama’s crocodile tears during his White House speech announcing executive action on gun control, I had to admit the dude has great potential of having a successful career at Hollywood.

    Obama wiped away tears as he recalled 2012 Sandy Hook massacre hoax.

    “Every time I think about those kids it gets me madder,” Obama said. Watch video below.

    https://rehmat1.com/2016/01/08/jews-for-obama-on-gun-control/

    Read More
    • Replies: @SteveM

    The real reason is they want to disarm Americans so they don’t challenge the Jewish Lobby government agencies.
     
    Not quite. A primary argument against arming up Ukraine is that the Russians would wipe them out if the Ukrainians, made confident with their increased fire power, took the Russians on.

    Same thing with citizen owned weapons in the United States. The Security State Leviathan can always out-slaughter an armed citizenry made stupid with gun-nut bravado. In that context, the amorphous Jewish Lobby should be arguing for fewer restrictions to egg the gun-nuts on. And wait with anticipatory delight for the inevitable gun-nut mow-down by Security State Goons.

    Adams is pulling his readers' chain with his sardonic logic, but his end state conclusion is accurate. I.e., there ain't no real solutions to gun violence.

    , @Neil Templeton
    I think Joe Biden deserves an Oscar for supporting role. He's good.
  3. @Rehmat
    The guns in the hands of American civilians have killed more fellow Americans per year (over 12,000) than any other country in the world. However, that's the reason the "Gun Control Lobby" (mostly Jewish organizations) opposes guns in American hands. The real reason is they want to disarm Americans so they don't challenge the Jewish Lobby government agencies.

    I’m no fan of Barack Hussein Obama. I rarely listen to his speeches which are usually full of religious and political lies except when he delivers them at the NY-based UN Headquarters. On Tuesday, after watching Obama’s crocodile tears during his White House speech announcing executive action on gun control, I had to admit the dude has great potential of having a successful career at Hollywood.

    Obama wiped away tears as he recalled 2012 Sandy Hook massacre hoax.

    “Every time I think about those kids it gets me madder,” Obama said. Watch video below.

    https://rehmat1.com/2016/01/08/jews-for-obama-on-gun-control/

    The real reason is they want to disarm Americans so they don’t challenge the Jewish Lobby government agencies.

    Not quite. A primary argument against arming up Ukraine is that the Russians would wipe them out if the Ukrainians, made confident with their increased fire power, took the Russians on.

    Same thing with citizen owned weapons in the United States. The Security State Leviathan can always out-slaughter an armed citizenry made stupid with gun-nut bravado. In that context, the amorphous Jewish Lobby should be arguing for fewer restrictions to egg the gun-nuts on. And wait with anticipatory delight for the inevitable gun-nut mow-down by Security State Goons.

    Adams is pulling his readers’ chain with his sardonic logic, but his end state conclusion is accurate. I.e., there ain’t no real solutions to gun violence.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Chris Mallory

    The Security State Leviathan can always out-slaughter an armed citizenry made stupid with gun-nut bravado.
     
    You must not realize that the only thing that keeps the armed citizenry from slaughtering the Security State is that we have not been pushed far enough yet. Government forces only make up about 4 million "troops" if you count every military member and every member of law enforcement. They are outnumbered by at least 25 to 1 by armed citizens.
    , @Rehmat
    Comparing American situation with Ukraine is dumb. No foreign country, with the exception of Israel, has tried to bring a regime change by riots and guns. America brought a regime change in Ukraine by helping the neo-Nazis while the Ukrainian Jewish oligarch provided money to the thugs.

    In June 2015, Jewish multibillionaire George Soro, admitted to CNN’s Fareed Zakaria (married to a Jew woman) that he was the ‘master-mind’ behind the on-going bloodshed in Ukraine. In reality, Soro controls Ukraine via fellow Jewish Oligarchs and several pro-Israel NGOs funded by Soro’s 'Open Society Foundation' around the world.

    George Soro is famous for funding the so-called Color Revolutions around the world for the bankers or Israel....

    https://rehmat1.com/2015/06/06/jew-oligarchs-behind-ukrainian-bloodshed/
    , @Dr. X

    The Security State Leviathan can always out-slaughter an armed citizenry made stupid with gun-nut bravado.
     
    Yeah, that Security State Leviathan sure did a hell of a job teaching all those Vietnamese, Iraqi, and Afghan gun nuts that they were nothing but bravado and big talk and there's no way they could possibly win, didn't it?
    , @SFG
    Socrates is a unicorn.
    No unicorns are mortal.
    Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

    There's a term for an illogical argument that's true by accident--what is it again?
  4. Scott Adams (Dilbert!) has an amusing blog, but what is he doing on unz.com? If he agreed to this, and is going to show up here more often, that would be interesting. He’s certainly a lot more famous than most of the regular contributors!

    Read More
    • Replies: @landlubber
    Scott Adams is nothing more than a self-promoting dilkhead.
    , @iffen
    Scott Adams (Dilbert!) has an amusing blog, but what is he doing on unz.com?

    As a counter weight to some of the ignorance and stupidity. He's good, but not good enough to tip the scales.
  5. @pink_point

    But we do know that race and poverty are correlated. And we know that poverty and crime are correlated. And we know that race and political affiliation are correlated
     
    We also know that crime rates vary a lot cross-race within each income bracket.
    But who's going to cast the first stone, if , to keep their job, somebody needs to pretend they don't know?

    Not I.

    Somewhere, I think maybe at La Griffe, I saw reference to a “calculation*” that if you normed white and black populations for IQ and testosterone the criminality/incarceration rates were not much different. I.e. the criminality/incarceration rates for whites of IQ X and testosterone level Y were not too different from the rates for blacks with same X and Y.

    It would be nice to live in a world where things like this could be discussed rationally.

    *”Calculation” in quotes because the data upon which to base such a calculation is not really available (mirabile dictu!) and were based on something like the “method of thresholds” as are so many of La Griffe’s calculations.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Neil Templeton
    Hard to discuss things rationally when you're full of testosterone. Be careful what you wish for. A testosterone free world may not be a quant's paradise.
  6. I didn’t read the whole article but whoever this democrat is must be a rare bird because this was spot on accurate to the way the whole issue of gun rights feels to me:

    But Democrats are unlikely to talk Republicans out of gun ownership because it comes off as “Put down your gun so I can shoot you.”

    I understand the dilemma now from the Democrat’s perspective.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wade
    Ok, I had a temporary brain malfunction during my last post. I now realize who Scott Adams is after following the link. His last comment was hilarious:

    *I endorsed Clinton for president for my personal safety. I write about Trump’s powers of persuasion and it is not safe to live in California if people think you support Trump in any way. Also, I’m rich, so I don’t want anything to change in this country. The rest of you might have a different risk profile.
     

    ..Unless he has aspergers and was being completely honest in which case this isn't funny at all.
  7. @Wade
    I didn't read the whole article but whoever this democrat is must be a rare bird because this was spot on accurate to the way the whole issue of gun rights feels to me:


    But Democrats are unlikely to talk Republicans out of gun ownership because it comes off as “Put down your gun so I can shoot you.”
     
    I understand the dilemma now from the Democrat's perspective.

    Ok, I had a temporary brain malfunction during my last post. I now realize who Scott Adams is after following the link. His last comment was hilarious:

    *I endorsed Clinton for president for my personal safety. I write about Trump’s powers of persuasion and it is not safe to live in California if people think you support Trump in any way. Also, I’m rich, so I don’t want anything to change in this country. The rest of you might have a different risk profile.

    ..Unless he has aspergers and was being completely honest in which case this isn’t funny at all.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MEH 0910
    I think Scott Adams is being both simultaneously funny and asbergy honest.
    , @MEH 0910
    Huh, apparently Scott Adams was being deadly serious:

    http://blog.dilbert.com/post/147247313346/when-persuasion-turns-deadly

    Some of you watched with amusement as I endorsed Hillary Clinton for my personal safety. What you might not know is that I was completely serious. I was getting a lot of direct and indirect death threats for writing about Trump’s powers of persuasion, and I made all of that go away by endorsing Clinton. People don’t care why I am on their side. They only care that I am.

    You might have found it funny that I endorsed Clinton for my personal safety. But it was only funny by coincidence. I did it for personal safety, and apparently it is working. Where I live, in California, it is not safe to be seen as supportive of anything Trump says or does. So I fixed that.

    Again, I’m completely serious about the safety issue. Writing about Trump ended my speaking career, and has already reduced my income by about 40%, as far as I can tell. But I’m in less physical danger than I was.
     
  8. @SteveM

    The real reason is they want to disarm Americans so they don’t challenge the Jewish Lobby government agencies.
     
    Not quite. A primary argument against arming up Ukraine is that the Russians would wipe them out if the Ukrainians, made confident with their increased fire power, took the Russians on.

    Same thing with citizen owned weapons in the United States. The Security State Leviathan can always out-slaughter an armed citizenry made stupid with gun-nut bravado. In that context, the amorphous Jewish Lobby should be arguing for fewer restrictions to egg the gun-nuts on. And wait with anticipatory delight for the inevitable gun-nut mow-down by Security State Goons.

    Adams is pulling his readers' chain with his sardonic logic, but his end state conclusion is accurate. I.e., there ain't no real solutions to gun violence.

    The Security State Leviathan can always out-slaughter an armed citizenry made stupid with gun-nut bravado.

    You must not realize that the only thing that keeps the armed citizenry from slaughtering the Security State is that we have not been pushed far enough yet. Government forces only make up about 4 million “troops” if you count every military member and every member of law enforcement. They are outnumbered by at least 25 to 1 by armed citizens.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SteveM

    You must not realize that the only thing that keeps the armed citizenry from slaughtering the Security State is that we have not been pushed far enough yet. Government forces only make up about 4 million “troops” if you count every military member and every member of law enforcement. They are outnumbered by at least 25 to 1 by armed citizens.
     
    That wishful thinking and 2 bucks will get you a cup of coffee. Because the way it would actually play out is obvious.

    I.e., there would be initial pockets of insurrection, (the "early adopters"). They would be slaughtered by the Security State à la Waco. Roided up Goon Law Enforcement would be happy to oblige. The Security State wins by early intimidation.

    It's how the Stalin Soviets did it and it really works.
    , @TBA
    The Government doesn't have just guns, but also tanks, bombers, and missiles.
    , @pyrrhus
    And the civilians, many of whom are hunters or ex military, are much better with firearms than most of the Stasi....
    , @Neil Templeton
    Of which 24 would shrink or collapse in shame if called a hater or a denier.
  9. On average, Democrats use guns for shooting the innocent. We call that crime.

    On average, Republicans use guns for sporting purposes and self-defense.

    Controlled for race, I wonder if there is any truth to this at all…

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    Almost no African-"Americans" are Republicans, in percentage terms or absolute terms, so controlling for race wouldn't seem useful or meaningful.
  10. Back in the 1980′s, I made friends with a guy who moved here to the midwest from NJ. I wasn’t as big into guns back then as I am now, but every male in my state over the age of 20 had at least a .22 rifle and either a shotgun or a deer rifle. I also had a couple of handguns, as I recall. My friend did go shooting with me once, but he was generally horrified by the thought of guns, and he wasn’t a liberal.

    I don’t know how much gun control was in force in NJ back then, but for him, guns had a very strong connection to criminal activity. Where I was from, not so much, except in black neighborhoods. For him (back then) there was very little nuance regarding gun ownership. Guns and their purpose could be summed up in a couple of simplistic ideas or memes.

    I didn’t see it so much as a liberal vs. conservative thing, but more of upper east coast vs. the rest of the country (except maybe California.)Urban vs. rural. I think it’s morphed into liberal vs. conservative thing over time, though. (Remember when Nixon promoted gun control?)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    New Jersey is full of "European-Americans", whose national origins weren't steeped in the rights of English common law. What's your friend's background?

    Ironic, isn't it, that those common law rights are worse off in their homeland today than they are anywhere on the continent.
  11. ” And we know that Race and IQ are correlated……”
    How terribly predictable that Dilbert Adams never mentions this obvious fact.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kyle a
    He did. You neglected to read between the lines.
  12. Therefore, my team (Clinton) is more likely to use guns to shoot innocent people, whereas the other team (Trump) is more likely to use guns for sporting and defense.

    That’s a gross generalization. Obviously.

    It’s also a gross fallacy since it’s based on the false idea that there are 2 parties in the U.S. If there are, when did it happen?

    “[Teddy]Roosevelt then said : “Pettigrew, you know the two old parties are just alike. They are both controlled by the same influences…”

    - R. F. Pettigrew, “Imperial Washington,” The story of American Public life from 1870 to 1920 (1922), p 234

    https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt/search?q1=amiable;id=yale.39002002948025;view=1up;seq=7;start=1;sz=10;page=search;orient=0

    PS: I guess we’d call ‘Ol Teddy a Kunspirasee Theerist er sumpin.

    Read More
  13. I had encountered this Scott Adams piece before, but on a second read I admire even more the genius with which it breezily wedges into the (white) Democrat consciousness the fact of their cognitive dissonance as to who they really are.

    The white liberal invariably attributes to “liberals” and “Democrats” the supposed virtues “he or she” sees in themself, conveniently omitting that their political affiliation enjoys the allegiance of nine out of ten blacks– blacks whose religiosity provides their spurious religious=impoverished red state correlations, blacks whose gun violence makes Democrats the party of gun violence!

    But I guess blacks, as well as NAMs of non-black Color, aren’t the “real liberals” or else liberalism wouldn’t have such squeaky NPR-listening, latte-sipping highbrow (non-MLK) street cred.

    –And yes, Sandy Hook is a hoax.

    Read More
  14. @Chris Mallory

    The Security State Leviathan can always out-slaughter an armed citizenry made stupid with gun-nut bravado.
     
    You must not realize that the only thing that keeps the armed citizenry from slaughtering the Security State is that we have not been pushed far enough yet. Government forces only make up about 4 million "troops" if you count every military member and every member of law enforcement. They are outnumbered by at least 25 to 1 by armed citizens.

    You must not realize that the only thing that keeps the armed citizenry from slaughtering the Security State is that we have not been pushed far enough yet. Government forces only make up about 4 million “troops” if you count every military member and every member of law enforcement. They are outnumbered by at least 25 to 1 by armed citizens.

    That wishful thinking and 2 bucks will get you a cup of coffee. Because the way it would actually play out is obvious.

    I.e., there would be initial pockets of insurrection, (the “early adopters”). They would be slaughtered by the Security State à la Waco. Roided up Goon Law Enforcement would be happy to oblige. The Security State wins by early intimidation.

    It’s how the Stalin Soviets did it and it really works.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Former Darfur
    Had every Russian had a good rifle and a good small handgun, the work of the NKVD would have been much more challenging. A few people would have went out shooting.

    If the ruling government can make it an all out war against the citizens, of course, they're toast.
    But as we saw in the Middle East since 9/11, that's only a small part of what happens. We have effectively been run out-as we always will be, unless we are in an all out war footing, in which case we are invincible.

    The real value of a thoroughly armed citizenry, a reasonable proportion of which are capable and willing to use their weapons effectively, is "pension denial"- the ability to kill the State's secret police actors, who do what they do in large part for the promise of a fat juicy government pension.

    You make tyranny expensive enough and people get other ideas.
    , @Walt
    Look to the US Govt defeats in Vietnam, Somalia and Iraq as a guidebook to the ineffectiveness of bureaucratic warfare against a determined enemy in very different environments.
  15. @jb
    Scott Adams (Dilbert!) has an amusing blog, but what is he doing on unz.com? If he agreed to this, and is going to show up here more often, that would be interesting. He's certainly a lot more famous than most of the regular contributors!

    Scott Adams is nothing more than a self-promoting dilkhead.

    Read More
    • Agree: Bill
    • Replies: @Bill
    Changed my mind after I agreed. He's a little more than a self-promoting dickhead. He is fairly openly mocking his fan base. Go over to his blog and read his comments section. Basically, he abuses the retarded for fun.
  16. @SteveM

    The real reason is they want to disarm Americans so they don’t challenge the Jewish Lobby government agencies.
     
    Not quite. A primary argument against arming up Ukraine is that the Russians would wipe them out if the Ukrainians, made confident with their increased fire power, took the Russians on.

    Same thing with citizen owned weapons in the United States. The Security State Leviathan can always out-slaughter an armed citizenry made stupid with gun-nut bravado. In that context, the amorphous Jewish Lobby should be arguing for fewer restrictions to egg the gun-nuts on. And wait with anticipatory delight for the inevitable gun-nut mow-down by Security State Goons.

    Adams is pulling his readers' chain with his sardonic logic, but his end state conclusion is accurate. I.e., there ain't no real solutions to gun violence.

    Comparing American situation with Ukraine is dumb. No foreign country, with the exception of Israel, has tried to bring a regime change by riots and guns. America brought a regime change in Ukraine by helping the neo-Nazis while the Ukrainian Jewish oligarch provided money to the thugs.

    In June 2015, Jewish multibillionaire George Soro, admitted to CNN’s Fareed Zakaria (married to a Jew woman) that he was the ‘master-mind’ behind the on-going bloodshed in Ukraine. In reality, Soro controls Ukraine via fellow Jewish Oligarchs and several pro-Israel NGOs funded by Soro’s ‘Open Society Foundation’ around the world.

    George Soro is famous for funding the so-called Color Revolutions around the world for the bankers or Israel….

    https://rehmat1.com/2015/06/06/jew-oligarchs-behind-ukrainian-bloodshed/

    Read More
  17. @Chris Mallory

    The Security State Leviathan can always out-slaughter an armed citizenry made stupid with gun-nut bravado.
     
    You must not realize that the only thing that keeps the armed citizenry from slaughtering the Security State is that we have not been pushed far enough yet. Government forces only make up about 4 million "troops" if you count every military member and every member of law enforcement. They are outnumbered by at least 25 to 1 by armed citizens.

    The Government doesn’t have just guns, but also tanks, bombers, and missiles.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Chris Mallory
    And if they use them on CONUSA against Americans, they have already lost. But remember, tank drivers and pilots have to eat and use the bathroom. They will be soft targets at some time.
  18. @SteveM

    You must not realize that the only thing that keeps the armed citizenry from slaughtering the Security State is that we have not been pushed far enough yet. Government forces only make up about 4 million “troops” if you count every military member and every member of law enforcement. They are outnumbered by at least 25 to 1 by armed citizens.
     
    That wishful thinking and 2 bucks will get you a cup of coffee. Because the way it would actually play out is obvious.

    I.e., there would be initial pockets of insurrection, (the "early adopters"). They would be slaughtered by the Security State à la Waco. Roided up Goon Law Enforcement would be happy to oblige. The Security State wins by early intimidation.

    It's how the Stalin Soviets did it and it really works.

    Had every Russian had a good rifle and a good small handgun, the work of the NKVD would have been much more challenging. A few people would have went out shooting.

    If the ruling government can make it an all out war against the citizens, of course, they’re toast.
    But as we saw in the Middle East since 9/11, that’s only a small part of what happens. We have effectively been run out-as we always will be, unless we are in an all out war footing, in which case we are invincible.

    The real value of a thoroughly armed citizenry, a reasonable proportion of which are capable and willing to use their weapons effectively, is “pension denial”- the ability to kill the State’s secret police actors, who do what they do in large part for the promise of a fat juicy government pension.

    You make tyranny expensive enough and people get other ideas.

    Read More
  19. @SteveM

    The real reason is they want to disarm Americans so they don’t challenge the Jewish Lobby government agencies.
     
    Not quite. A primary argument against arming up Ukraine is that the Russians would wipe them out if the Ukrainians, made confident with their increased fire power, took the Russians on.

    Same thing with citizen owned weapons in the United States. The Security State Leviathan can always out-slaughter an armed citizenry made stupid with gun-nut bravado. In that context, the amorphous Jewish Lobby should be arguing for fewer restrictions to egg the gun-nuts on. And wait with anticipatory delight for the inevitable gun-nut mow-down by Security State Goons.

    Adams is pulling his readers' chain with his sardonic logic, but his end state conclusion is accurate. I.e., there ain't no real solutions to gun violence.

    The Security State Leviathan can always out-slaughter an armed citizenry made stupid with gun-nut bravado.

    Yeah, that Security State Leviathan sure did a hell of a job teaching all those Vietnamese, Iraqi, and Afghan gun nuts that they were nothing but bravado and big talk and there’s no way they could possibly win, didn’t it?

    Read More
  20. @TBA
    The Government doesn't have just guns, but also tanks, bombers, and missiles.

    And if they use them on CONUSA against Americans, they have already lost. But remember, tank drivers and pilots have to eat and use the bathroom. They will be soft targets at some time.

    Read More
  21. @Chris Mallory

    The Security State Leviathan can always out-slaughter an armed citizenry made stupid with gun-nut bravado.
     
    You must not realize that the only thing that keeps the armed citizenry from slaughtering the Security State is that we have not been pushed far enough yet. Government forces only make up about 4 million "troops" if you count every military member and every member of law enforcement. They are outnumbered by at least 25 to 1 by armed citizens.

    And the civilians, many of whom are hunters or ex military, are much better with firearms than most of the Stasi….

    Read More
  22. @SteveM

    You must not realize that the only thing that keeps the armed citizenry from slaughtering the Security State is that we have not been pushed far enough yet. Government forces only make up about 4 million “troops” if you count every military member and every member of law enforcement. They are outnumbered by at least 25 to 1 by armed citizens.
     
    That wishful thinking and 2 bucks will get you a cup of coffee. Because the way it would actually play out is obvious.

    I.e., there would be initial pockets of insurrection, (the "early adopters"). They would be slaughtered by the Security State à la Waco. Roided up Goon Law Enforcement would be happy to oblige. The Security State wins by early intimidation.

    It's how the Stalin Soviets did it and it really works.

    Look to the US Govt defeats in Vietnam, Somalia and Iraq as a guidebook to the ineffectiveness of bureaucratic warfare against a determined enemy in very different environments.

    Read More
  23. Obama wiped away tears as he recalled 2012 Sandy Hook massacre hoax.

    “Every time I think about those kids it gets me madder,” Obama said. Watch video below.

    I suppose the best way to work up tears for the camera is to think about something in your past that gets you mad or sad enough to cry.

    In Hussein’s case, he’s probably channeling all the times he’s had his ass kicked on gun control. He’s used to getting his own way, so his routine drubbings on this issue probably really stick in his craw.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    barry's hatred of whites -- and his hatred of the white part of himself -- may come from being turned down by that cute white guy he had such a big crush on in college....
  24. It amazes me how spectacularly wrong everyone gets the American insurrection issue. People see what they want to see, I guess.

    American forces couldn’t win in Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, or Iraq. They can’t beat illiterate goatherders without a pot to piss in, using pretty liberal ROE, but they’re gonna wipe the floor with a rich, educated population with lot of engineers and chemists, using a much more restrictive ROE?

    Tanks and planes and bombs are useless if you can’t use them. Anyone who thinks the gov’t could use them, I have cause to doubt their sanity. The gov’t would fold like a cheap suit. They’d run to the negotiating table. They’re a bunch of pantywaists. That’s if they had the time to run to the negotiating table, before they were voted out of office for bungling so badly that they created an actual insurgency.

    Then there are the idiots who think Americans are anywhere near angry enough to mount an insurgency. They aren’t. Americans are fat and apathetic. A small number are truly pissed, but they’re an insignificant fraction of the population.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Vendetta
    100% true. I'll add in two more points.

    The first is that that everyone wrongly assumes that the military are a bunch of robots who will fall in lockstep to operations against their fellow citizens. The reality is they're going to be plagued by massive problems of insubordination, desertion, and defection. Military veterans and armed forces defectors are going to be the backbone of any anti-government insurgency if one ever develops in this country.

    The other is one that the cheerleaders who want to start the civil war again tomorrow generally ignore - and that is the costs of guerrilla warfare for the guerrillas. You sign up to fight as an insurgent, you pretty much sign a death warrant on your entire family. That's how it works. Your women and children are a softer and easier target than you are.

    Until things are bad enough that normal people would be willing to risk their entire families to change them, we're not going to get a rebellion of any significance in this country.

    The demographics are all wrong for it too at the moment - revolution needs a lot of unemployed males in their teens and twenties - people with few attachments and little to lose, and a strong will to fight. White Ameria and Europe don't have that right now.

    Black America and Muslim Europe on the other hand do. And that's why they're the ones already fighting or edging toward low-intensity war against their governments.
  25. K, obviously not “everyone.” But a spectacularly large number of people commit one of those errors.

    Read More
  26. Eventually things will inevitably come to a head. The trends and the numbers are obvious. But we aren’t nearly there yet.

    There’s a lot of ruin in a nation.

    Read More
  27. @Wade
    Ok, I had a temporary brain malfunction during my last post. I now realize who Scott Adams is after following the link. His last comment was hilarious:

    *I endorsed Clinton for president for my personal safety. I write about Trump’s powers of persuasion and it is not safe to live in California if people think you support Trump in any way. Also, I’m rich, so I don’t want anything to change in this country. The rest of you might have a different risk profile.
     

    ..Unless he has aspergers and was being completely honest in which case this isn't funny at all.

    I think Scott Adams is being both simultaneously funny and asbergy honest.

    Read More
  28. Please Ron, don’t do this again.

    I’m sick and tired of seeing Scott Adams everywhere all of a sudden. This guy really creeps me out.

    He is not being either sarcastic or ironical in his endorsement of Hillary Clinton. He really means it, at least as much as he can really mean anything from his platform of epistemological relativism. He certainly does not support Donald Trump and he is no friend of the alt-right.

    Read More
    • Replies: @PapayaSF
    I totally disagree. Of course his endorsement of Hillary is sarcastic. If you had read his other blog posts on Trump, you'd know that. He's a very interesting guy, and a year ago he was nearly the only one who said Trump would win the nomination. I'm happy to see him here.
    , @Daniel Williams

    [Scott Adams] certainly does not support Donald Trump and he is no friend of the alt-right.
     
    And that's all that really matters, right? His ongoing, insightful commentary into the Trump phenomenon and today's political scene is less relevant than his failure to wear the appropriate blinders. Why even bother acknowledging his writing, no matter how prescient he's been, right?
  29. @jb
    Scott Adams (Dilbert!) has an amusing blog, but what is he doing on unz.com? If he agreed to this, and is going to show up here more often, that would be interesting. He's certainly a lot more famous than most of the regular contributors!

    Scott Adams (Dilbert!) has an amusing blog, but what is he doing on unz.com?

    As a counter weight to some of the ignorance and stupidity. He’s good, but not good enough to tip the scales.

    Read More
  30. @J1234
    Back in the 1980's, I made friends with a guy who moved here to the midwest from NJ. I wasn't as big into guns back then as I am now, but every male in my state over the age of 20 had at least a .22 rifle and either a shotgun or a deer rifle. I also had a couple of handguns, as I recall. My friend did go shooting with me once, but he was generally horrified by the thought of guns, and he wasn't a liberal.

    I don't know how much gun control was in force in NJ back then, but for him, guns had a very strong connection to criminal activity. Where I was from, not so much, except in black neighborhoods. For him (back then) there was very little nuance regarding gun ownership. Guns and their purpose could be summed up in a couple of simplistic ideas or memes.

    I didn't see it so much as a liberal vs. conservative thing, but more of upper east coast vs. the rest of the country (except maybe California.)Urban vs. rural. I think it's morphed into liberal vs. conservative thing over time, though. (Remember when Nixon promoted gun control?)

    New Jersey is full of “European-Americans”, whose national origins weren’t steeped in the rights of English common law. What’s your friend’s background?

    Ironic, isn’t it, that those common law rights are worse off in their homeland today than they are anywhere on the continent.

    Read More
    • Replies: @J1234

    What’s your friend’s background?
     
    As I recall, he was Swiss and German ancestry. He had a Christian background, too. Catholic I think.

    But his American roots definitely came from the "Ellis Island" immigration as opposed to the earlier "Colonial derived" immigration (as my ancestors did.) On the other hand, Germans and Scandinavians who came to the Midwest in the late 1800's quickly became adherents to American gun culture.

  31. @Intelligent Dasein
    Please Ron, don't do this again.

    I'm sick and tired of seeing Scott Adams everywhere all of a sudden. This guy really creeps me out.

    He is not being either sarcastic or ironical in his endorsement of Hillary Clinton. He really means it, at least as much as he can really mean anything from his platform of epistemological relativism. He certainly does not support Donald Trump and he is no friend of the alt-right.

    I totally disagree. Of course his endorsement of Hillary is sarcastic. If you had read his other blog posts on Trump, you’d know that. He’s a very interesting guy, and a year ago he was nearly the only one who said Trump would win the nomination. I’m happy to see him here.

    Read More
  32. @Verymuchalive
    " And we know that Race and IQ are correlated......"
    How terribly predictable that Dilbert Adams never mentions this obvious fact.

    He did. You neglected to read between the lines.

    Read More
  33. @Hail

    On average, Democrats use guns for shooting the innocent. We call that crime.

    On average, Republicans use guns for sporting purposes and self-defense.
     
    Controlled for race, I wonder if there is any truth to this at all...

    Almost no African-”Americans” are Republicans, in percentage terms or absolute terms, so controlling for race wouldn’t seem useful or meaningful.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hail
    No, I mean applying it to Whites alone.

    Scott Adams wrote:

    On average, Democrats use guns for shooting the innocent. We call that crime.
    On average, Republicans use guns for sporting purposes and self-defense.
     
    Is this true for White Democrats? Do White Democrat-voters commit more crime than White Republican-voters?
  34. @Svigor

    Obama wiped away tears as he recalled 2012 Sandy Hook massacre hoax.

    “Every time I think about those kids it gets me madder,” Obama said. Watch video below.
     
    I suppose the best way to work up tears for the camera is to think about something in your past that gets you mad or sad enough to cry.

    In Hussein's case, he's probably channeling all the times he's had his ass kicked on gun control. He's used to getting his own way, so his routine drubbings on this issue probably really stick in his craw.

    barry’s hatred of whites — and his hatred of the white part of himself — may come from being turned down by that cute white guy he had such a big crush on in college….

    Read More
  35. @Intelligent Dasein
    Please Ron, don't do this again.

    I'm sick and tired of seeing Scott Adams everywhere all of a sudden. This guy really creeps me out.

    He is not being either sarcastic or ironical in his endorsement of Hillary Clinton. He really means it, at least as much as he can really mean anything from his platform of epistemological relativism. He certainly does not support Donald Trump and he is no friend of the alt-right.

    [Scott Adams] certainly does not support Donald Trump and he is no friend of the alt-right.

    And that’s all that really matters, right? His ongoing, insightful commentary into the Trump phenomenon and today’s political scene is less relevant than his failure to wear the appropriate blinders. Why even bother acknowledging his writing, no matter how prescient he’s been, right?

    Read More
  36. “But we do know that race and poverty are correlated. And we know that poverty and crime are correlated”

    And the missing link here?

    And we know that race and stupidity are correlated.

    Read More
  37. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    America’s gun problems are like a stage III cancer that has to be treated systematically and methodically. If the government simply bans guns overnight, lots of civilians will be at the mercy of criminals with guns. However, if guns continue to be obtained easily by the public, then gun violence will only prevail. People who argue that guns don’t kill but people do should realize that it’s much easier to conduct a massacre with guns in contrast to knives. That’s why you don’t see officers shooting people for fear of getting shot in many other countries where private citizens are not allowed to process guns. Gun ownership should be heavily regulated by law, but it has to be implemented gradually with other measures taking place. For example, the government would need to hire more soldiers, cops and securities to protect the people and confiscate illegal guns until gun procession by the public is reduced to safe level. A solution like this doesn’t seem very hard to come up with. I guess the gun groups are just too powerful at playing politics under America’s democracy everyone is so proud of.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Chris Mallory

    I guess the gun groups are just too powerful at playing politics under America’s democracy everyone is so proud of.
     
    We are not a democracy, we are a Constitutional Republic. The right to keep and bear arms is a right protected by that Constitution and not subject to democratic vote.
    , @Outwest
    Why would I want -or allow- my security to be in the hands of some marginally intelligent/educated security type. The police are useful in investigating and often solving a violent crime after the fact. A defense against a home invasion is yours to deal with.
    , @Twinkie

    For example, the government would need to hire more soldiers, cops and securities...
     
    In other words, you would have the United States become an Orwellian nightmare and us, law-abiding citizens, stripped of our God-given right to be an armed and free people, just because troublesome blacks kill each other with guns and occasionally some of them are killed by police officers.

    I guess the gun groups are just too powerful at playing politics under America’s democracy everyone is so proud of.
     
    Those "gun groups" are made up of us grassroots Americans who value their liberty. And ours is the only country whose foundational document recognizes the inherent right of self-defense for its citizenry - even against its government, should that, unfortunately, be necessary.
    , @Reg Cæsar

    That’s why you don’t see officers shooting people for fear of getting shot in many other countries where private citizens are not allowed to process guns
     
    Jamaica?
  38. The anti-gun movement shamelessly even used the ‘Jewish Holocaust’ to make point against NRA.

    In 2013, Abraham Foxman, then head of the pro-Israel Jewish lobby group ADL blasted Scott L. Bach, a member of the US National Rifle Association (NRA) board and executive director of the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs for criticizing Jewish Mayor of Jersey City, Steven Fulop, who wants to make it hard for the city people to own guns.

    “No matter how strong one’s objections are to a policy, or how committed an organization is to its mission, invoking the Holocaust to score political points is offensive and has no place in civil discourse,” said Abbe Foxman.

    The NRA-ILA had accused the mayor playing politics with the law enforcement firearms. Police officers from several American cities being receiving enhanced training in Israel – ADL paying all the expenses.

    According to daily New York Observer, Fulop is son of Israeli and Hungarian immigrants. His parents owned a deli in Newark, where Steve worked as a teenager. His grandparents were Holocaust survivors who the Fulop family says came to America penniless. He worked at the Jewish Goldman Sachs. He was brought to the city politics by Jersey’s first black mayor, Glenn Cunningham.

    “ADL is a strong supporter of destroying the second amendment right for Americans to own guns. The ADL supported the District of Columbia in the District of Columbia vs Heller, in which the government was arguing that the Second Amendment does not prevent a city from banning firearms even when they are being used in the defense of one’s home. The ADL’s actions to deprive fellow Americans of their constitutional rights has been so egregious that other Jewish groups like Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership has claimed that the ADL promotes ‘Nazi based laws’,” says Bilzerian Report, April 10, 2012.

    https://rehmat1.com/2013/12/17/adl-nra-hates-jews/

    Read More
  39. @Anonymous
    America's gun problems are like a stage III cancer that has to be treated systematically and methodically. If the government simply bans guns overnight, lots of civilians will be at the mercy of criminals with guns. However, if guns continue to be obtained easily by the public, then gun violence will only prevail. People who argue that guns don't kill but people do should realize that it's much easier to conduct a massacre with guns in contrast to knives. That's why you don't see officers shooting people for fear of getting shot in many other countries where private citizens are not allowed to process guns. Gun ownership should be heavily regulated by law, but it has to be implemented gradually with other measures taking place. For example, the government would need to hire more soldiers, cops and securities to protect the people and confiscate illegal guns until gun procession by the public is reduced to safe level. A solution like this doesn't seem very hard to come up with. I guess the gun groups are just too powerful at playing politics under America's democracy everyone is so proud of.

    I guess the gun groups are just too powerful at playing politics under America’s democracy everyone is so proud of.

    We are not a democracy, we are a Constitutional Republic. The right to keep and bear arms is a right protected by that Constitution and not subject to democratic vote.

    Read More
  40. @landlubber
    Scott Adams is nothing more than a self-promoting dilkhead.

    Changed my mind after I agreed. He’s a little more than a self-promoting dickhead. He is fairly openly mocking his fan base. Go over to his blog and read his comments section. Basically, he abuses the retarded for fun.

    Read More
  41. @Anonymous
    America's gun problems are like a stage III cancer that has to be treated systematically and methodically. If the government simply bans guns overnight, lots of civilians will be at the mercy of criminals with guns. However, if guns continue to be obtained easily by the public, then gun violence will only prevail. People who argue that guns don't kill but people do should realize that it's much easier to conduct a massacre with guns in contrast to knives. That's why you don't see officers shooting people for fear of getting shot in many other countries where private citizens are not allowed to process guns. Gun ownership should be heavily regulated by law, but it has to be implemented gradually with other measures taking place. For example, the government would need to hire more soldiers, cops and securities to protect the people and confiscate illegal guns until gun procession by the public is reduced to safe level. A solution like this doesn't seem very hard to come up with. I guess the gun groups are just too powerful at playing politics under America's democracy everyone is so proud of.

    Why would I want -or allow- my security to be in the hands of some marginally intelligent/educated security type. The police are useful in investigating and often solving a violent crime after the fact. A defense against a home invasion is yours to deal with.

    Read More
  42. @Reg Cæsar
    New Jersey is full of "European-Americans", whose national origins weren't steeped in the rights of English common law. What's your friend's background?

    Ironic, isn't it, that those common law rights are worse off in their homeland today than they are anywhere on the continent.

    What’s your friend’s background?

    As I recall, he was Swiss and German ancestry. He had a Christian background, too. Catholic I think.

    But his American roots definitely came from the “Ellis Island” immigration as opposed to the earlier “Colonial derived” immigration (as my ancestors did.) On the other hand, Germans and Scandinavians who came to the Midwest in the late 1800′s quickly became adherents to American gun culture.

    Read More
  43. @Rehmat
    The guns in the hands of American civilians have killed more fellow Americans per year (over 12,000) than any other country in the world. However, that's the reason the "Gun Control Lobby" (mostly Jewish organizations) opposes guns in American hands. The real reason is they want to disarm Americans so they don't challenge the Jewish Lobby government agencies.

    I’m no fan of Barack Hussein Obama. I rarely listen to his speeches which are usually full of religious and political lies except when he delivers them at the NY-based UN Headquarters. On Tuesday, after watching Obama’s crocodile tears during his White House speech announcing executive action on gun control, I had to admit the dude has great potential of having a successful career at Hollywood.

    Obama wiped away tears as he recalled 2012 Sandy Hook massacre hoax.

    “Every time I think about those kids it gets me madder,” Obama said. Watch video below.

    https://rehmat1.com/2016/01/08/jews-for-obama-on-gun-control/

    I think Joe Biden deserves an Oscar for supporting role. He’s good.

    Read More
  44. @another fred
    Somewhere, I think maybe at La Griffe, I saw reference to a "calculation*" that if you normed white and black populations for IQ and testosterone the criminality/incarceration rates were not much different. I.e. the criminality/incarceration rates for whites of IQ X and testosterone level Y were not too different from the rates for blacks with same X and Y.

    It would be nice to live in a world where things like this could be discussed rationally.

    *"Calculation" in quotes because the data upon which to base such a calculation is not really available (mirabile dictu!) and were based on something like the "method of thresholds" as are so many of La Griffe's calculations.

    Hard to discuss things rationally when you’re full of testosterone. Be careful what you wish for. A testosterone free world may not be a quant’s paradise.

    Read More
    • Replies: @another fred
    The only thing I "wish for" is free investigation of reality. Paradise is not in the equation.
  45. @Chris Mallory

    The Security State Leviathan can always out-slaughter an armed citizenry made stupid with gun-nut bravado.
     
    You must not realize that the only thing that keeps the armed citizenry from slaughtering the Security State is that we have not been pushed far enough yet. Government forces only make up about 4 million "troops" if you count every military member and every member of law enforcement. They are outnumbered by at least 25 to 1 by armed citizens.

    Of which 24 would shrink or collapse in shame if called a hater or a denier.

    Read More
  46. @Wade
    Ok, I had a temporary brain malfunction during my last post. I now realize who Scott Adams is after following the link. His last comment was hilarious:

    *I endorsed Clinton for president for my personal safety. I write about Trump’s powers of persuasion and it is not safe to live in California if people think you support Trump in any way. Also, I’m rich, so I don’t want anything to change in this country. The rest of you might have a different risk profile.
     

    ..Unless he has aspergers and was being completely honest in which case this isn't funny at all.

    Huh, apparently Scott Adams was being deadly serious:

    http://blog.dilbert.com/post/147247313346/when-persuasion-turns-deadly

    Some of you watched with amusement as I endorsed Hillary Clinton for my personal safety. What you might not know is that I was completely serious. I was getting a lot of direct and indirect death threats for writing about Trump’s powers of persuasion, and I made all of that go away by endorsing Clinton. People don’t care why I am on their side. They only care that I am.

    You might have found it funny that I endorsed Clinton for my personal safety. But it was only funny by coincidence. I did it for personal safety, and apparently it is working. Where I live, in California, it is not safe to be seen as supportive of anything Trump says or does. So I fixed that.

    Again, I’m completely serious about the safety issue. Writing about Trump ended my speaking career, and has already reduced my income by about 40%, as far as I can tell. But I’m in less physical danger than I was.

    Read More
    • Replies: @landlubber
    Serious or deadpan, Scott Adams's blog posts reek of narcissism.
    , @Intelligent Dasein
    I wonder if the two jackasses who berated me up-thread would care to apologize now.
  47. @RadicalCenter
    Almost no African-"Americans" are Republicans, in percentage terms or absolute terms, so controlling for race wouldn't seem useful or meaningful.

    No, I mean applying it to Whites alone.

    Scott Adams wrote:

    On average, Democrats use guns for shooting the innocent. We call that crime.
    On average, Republicans use guns for sporting purposes and self-defense.

    Is this true for White Democrats? Do White Democrat-voters commit more crime than White Republican-voters?

    Read More
    • Replies: @another fred
    Since the left hand side of the bell curve commits more crime, that is probably a good question, but I don't think that is what captures the imagination or what Adams is about.

    Much has been made on the alt.right internet of the fact that such nut-case shooters as Jared Loughner and James Holmes (for example) were, if not registered Democrats, certainly sympathetic to their causes. Dylan Roof is about the only one of the "mass shooter" nuts who leaned to the "right" that I recall offhand.

    Not that I think this is part of Democrat policy, it is just that because the Democrats mouth so much sympathy for the "oppressed", they attract a larger share of troubled people, people who blame their problems on society and lash out.

  48. @Hail
    No, I mean applying it to Whites alone.

    Scott Adams wrote:

    On average, Democrats use guns for shooting the innocent. We call that crime.
    On average, Republicans use guns for sporting purposes and self-defense.
     
    Is this true for White Democrats? Do White Democrat-voters commit more crime than White Republican-voters?

    Since the left hand side of the bell curve commits more crime, that is probably a good question, but I don’t think that is what captures the imagination or what Adams is about.

    Much has been made on the alt.right internet of the fact that such nut-case shooters as Jared Loughner and James Holmes (for example) were, if not registered Democrats, certainly sympathetic to their causes. Dylan Roof is about the only one of the “mass shooter” nuts who leaned to the “right” that I recall offhand.

    Not that I think this is part of Democrat policy, it is just that because the Democrats mouth so much sympathy for the “oppressed”, they attract a larger share of troubled people, people who blame their problems on society and lash out.

    Read More
  49. @MEH 0910
    Huh, apparently Scott Adams was being deadly serious:

    http://blog.dilbert.com/post/147247313346/when-persuasion-turns-deadly

    Some of you watched with amusement as I endorsed Hillary Clinton for my personal safety. What you might not know is that I was completely serious. I was getting a lot of direct and indirect death threats for writing about Trump’s powers of persuasion, and I made all of that go away by endorsing Clinton. People don’t care why I am on their side. They only care that I am.

    You might have found it funny that I endorsed Clinton for my personal safety. But it was only funny by coincidence. I did it for personal safety, and apparently it is working. Where I live, in California, it is not safe to be seen as supportive of anything Trump says or does. So I fixed that.

    Again, I’m completely serious about the safety issue. Writing about Trump ended my speaking career, and has already reduced my income by about 40%, as far as I can tell. But I’m in less physical danger than I was.
     

    Serious or deadpan, Scott Adams’s blog posts reek of narcissism.

    Read More
  50. @Neil Templeton
    Hard to discuss things rationally when you're full of testosterone. Be careful what you wish for. A testosterone free world may not be a quant's paradise.

    The only thing I “wish for” is free investigation of reality. Paradise is not in the equation.

    Read More
  51. @Anonymous
    America's gun problems are like a stage III cancer that has to be treated systematically and methodically. If the government simply bans guns overnight, lots of civilians will be at the mercy of criminals with guns. However, if guns continue to be obtained easily by the public, then gun violence will only prevail. People who argue that guns don't kill but people do should realize that it's much easier to conduct a massacre with guns in contrast to knives. That's why you don't see officers shooting people for fear of getting shot in many other countries where private citizens are not allowed to process guns. Gun ownership should be heavily regulated by law, but it has to be implemented gradually with other measures taking place. For example, the government would need to hire more soldiers, cops and securities to protect the people and confiscate illegal guns until gun procession by the public is reduced to safe level. A solution like this doesn't seem very hard to come up with. I guess the gun groups are just too powerful at playing politics under America's democracy everyone is so proud of.

    For example, the government would need to hire more soldiers, cops and securities…

    In other words, you would have the United States become an Orwellian nightmare and us, law-abiding citizens, stripped of our God-given right to be an armed and free people, just because troublesome blacks kill each other with guns and occasionally some of them are killed by police officers.

    I guess the gun groups are just too powerful at playing politics under America’s democracy everyone is so proud of.

    Those “gun groups” are made up of us grassroots Americans who value their liberty. And ours is the only country whose foundational document recognizes the inherent right of self-defense for its citizenry – even against its government, should that, unfortunately, be necessary.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Auntie Analogue
    My dear Twinkie: I couldn't have said it better than you just said it.

    Well done.

    Molon Labe!
  52. @Twinkie

    For example, the government would need to hire more soldiers, cops and securities...
     
    In other words, you would have the United States become an Orwellian nightmare and us, law-abiding citizens, stripped of our God-given right to be an armed and free people, just because troublesome blacks kill each other with guns and occasionally some of them are killed by police officers.

    I guess the gun groups are just too powerful at playing politics under America’s democracy everyone is so proud of.
     
    Those "gun groups" are made up of us grassroots Americans who value their liberty. And ours is the only country whose foundational document recognizes the inherent right of self-defense for its citizenry - even against its government, should that, unfortunately, be necessary.

    My dear Twinkie: I couldn’t have said it better than you just said it.

    Well done.

    Molon Labe!

    Read More
  53. @SteveM

    The real reason is they want to disarm Americans so they don’t challenge the Jewish Lobby government agencies.
     
    Not quite. A primary argument against arming up Ukraine is that the Russians would wipe them out if the Ukrainians, made confident with their increased fire power, took the Russians on.

    Same thing with citizen owned weapons in the United States. The Security State Leviathan can always out-slaughter an armed citizenry made stupid with gun-nut bravado. In that context, the amorphous Jewish Lobby should be arguing for fewer restrictions to egg the gun-nuts on. And wait with anticipatory delight for the inevitable gun-nut mow-down by Security State Goons.

    Adams is pulling his readers' chain with his sardonic logic, but his end state conclusion is accurate. I.e., there ain't no real solutions to gun violence.

    Socrates is a unicorn.
    No unicorns are mortal.
    Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

    There’s a term for an illogical argument that’s true by accident–what is it again?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein
    If both the antecedent and the consequent of a conditional are false, then the conditional itself is true because by definition a conditional statement is false only when the antecedent is true and the consequent is false. Since you cannot have a situation in which the antecedent is true and the consequent is false if the antecedent is false, a false P and Q in the statement "If P and Q" makes the conditional true. This one tends to mystify beginning logic students.

    But by thinking through it more carefully you can see why this is so, and the same also sheds light on why negating the antecedent is a logical fallacy. Given the statement "If P then Q," postulating ~P tells us precisely nothing. The conditional operator can infer nothing from an input of ~P. It is consistent with all the facts and all the non-facts.
  54. @SFG
    Socrates is a unicorn.
    No unicorns are mortal.
    Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

    There's a term for an illogical argument that's true by accident--what is it again?

    If both the antecedent and the consequent of a conditional are false, then the conditional itself is true because by definition a conditional statement is false only when the antecedent is true and the consequent is false. Since you cannot have a situation in which the antecedent is true and the consequent is false if the antecedent is false, a false P and Q in the statement “If P and Q” makes the conditional true. This one tends to mystify beginning logic students.

    But by thinking through it more carefully you can see why this is so, and the same also sheds light on why negating the antecedent is a logical fallacy. Given the statement “If P then Q,” postulating ~P tells us precisely nothing. The conditional operator can infer nothing from an input of ~P. It is consistent with all the facts and all the non-facts.

    Read More
  55. @MEH 0910
    Huh, apparently Scott Adams was being deadly serious:

    http://blog.dilbert.com/post/147247313346/when-persuasion-turns-deadly

    Some of you watched with amusement as I endorsed Hillary Clinton for my personal safety. What you might not know is that I was completely serious. I was getting a lot of direct and indirect death threats for writing about Trump’s powers of persuasion, and I made all of that go away by endorsing Clinton. People don’t care why I am on their side. They only care that I am.

    You might have found it funny that I endorsed Clinton for my personal safety. But it was only funny by coincidence. I did it for personal safety, and apparently it is working. Where I live, in California, it is not safe to be seen as supportive of anything Trump says or does. So I fixed that.

    Again, I’m completely serious about the safety issue. Writing about Trump ended my speaking career, and has already reduced my income by about 40%, as far as I can tell. But I’m in less physical danger than I was.
     

    I wonder if the two jackasses who berated me up-thread would care to apologize now.

    Read More
    • Replies: @landlubber
    Ha, if they have internalized Adams's principles of persuasion, they will never apologize.
  56. @Anonymous
    America's gun problems are like a stage III cancer that has to be treated systematically and methodically. If the government simply bans guns overnight, lots of civilians will be at the mercy of criminals with guns. However, if guns continue to be obtained easily by the public, then gun violence will only prevail. People who argue that guns don't kill but people do should realize that it's much easier to conduct a massacre with guns in contrast to knives. That's why you don't see officers shooting people for fear of getting shot in many other countries where private citizens are not allowed to process guns. Gun ownership should be heavily regulated by law, but it has to be implemented gradually with other measures taking place. For example, the government would need to hire more soldiers, cops and securities to protect the people and confiscate illegal guns until gun procession by the public is reduced to safe level. A solution like this doesn't seem very hard to come up with. I guess the gun groups are just too powerful at playing politics under America's democracy everyone is so proud of.

    That’s why you don’t see officers shooting people for fear of getting shot in many other countries where private citizens are not allowed to process guns

    Jamaica?

    Read More
  57. @Intelligent Dasein
    I wonder if the two jackasses who berated me up-thread would care to apologize now.

    Ha, if they have internalized Adams’s principles of persuasion, they will never apologize.

    Read More
  58. @Svigor
    It amazes me how spectacularly wrong everyone gets the American insurrection issue. People see what they want to see, I guess.

    American forces couldn't win in Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, or Iraq. They can't beat illiterate goatherders without a pot to piss in, using pretty liberal ROE, but they're gonna wipe the floor with a rich, educated population with lot of engineers and chemists, using a much more restrictive ROE?

    Tanks and planes and bombs are useless if you can't use them. Anyone who thinks the gov't could use them, I have cause to doubt their sanity. The gov't would fold like a cheap suit. They'd run to the negotiating table. They're a bunch of pantywaists. That's if they had the time to run to the negotiating table, before they were voted out of office for bungling so badly that they created an actual insurgency.

    Then there are the idiots who think Americans are anywhere near angry enough to mount an insurgency. They aren't. Americans are fat and apathetic. A small number are truly pissed, but they're an insignificant fraction of the population.

    100% true. I’ll add in two more points.

    The first is that that everyone wrongly assumes that the military are a bunch of robots who will fall in lockstep to operations against their fellow citizens. The reality is they’re going to be plagued by massive problems of insubordination, desertion, and defection. Military veterans and armed forces defectors are going to be the backbone of any anti-government insurgency if one ever develops in this country.

    The other is one that the cheerleaders who want to start the civil war again tomorrow generally ignore – and that is the costs of guerrilla warfare for the guerrillas. You sign up to fight as an insurgent, you pretty much sign a death warrant on your entire family. That’s how it works. Your women and children are a softer and easier target than you are.

    Until things are bad enough that normal people would be willing to risk their entire families to change them, we’re not going to get a rebellion of any significance in this country.

    The demographics are all wrong for it too at the moment – revolution needs a lot of unemployed males in their teens and twenties – people with few attachments and little to lose, and a strong will to fight. White Ameria and Europe don’t have that right now.

    Black America and Muslim Europe on the other hand do. And that’s why they’re the ones already fighting or edging toward low-intensity war against their governments.

    Read More
  59. In essence, that is 100% correct. We don’t trust “them” and suspect “they” want nothing more than to terrorize us by making us defenseless.

    Read More
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS
PastClassics
Which superpower is more threatened by its “extractive elites”?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
The sources of America’s immigration problems—and a possible solution