The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Bloomberg on the Real Target of Gun Control
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Back in 2004, I hypothesized in my “Baby Gap” article in The American Conservative:

The endless gun-control brouhaha, which on the surface appears to be a bitter battle between liberal and conservative whites, also features a cryptic racial angle. What blue-region white liberals actually want is for the government to disarm the dangerous urban minorities that threaten their children’s safety. Red-region white conservatives, insulated by distance from the Crips and the Bloods, don’t care that white liberals’ kids are in peril. Besides, in sparsely populated Republican areas, where police response times are slow and the chances of drilling an innocent bystander are slim, guns make more sense for self-defense than in the cities and suburbs.

White liberals, angered by white conservatives’ lack of racial solidarity with them, yet bereft of any vocabulary for expressing such a verboten concept, pretend that they need gun control to protect them from gun-crazy rural rednecks, such as the ones Michael Moore demonized in “Bowling for Columbine,” thus further enraging red-region Republicans.

From the Aspen Times, an account of a question and answer session with former New York City mayor and crime-fighting billionaire Michael Bloomberg:

Bloomberg claimed that 95 percent of murders fall into a specific category: male, minority and between the ages of 15 and 25.* Cities need to get guns out of this group’s hands and keep them alive, he said.

“These kids think they’re going to get killed anyway because all their friends are getting killed,” Bloomberg said. “They just don’t have any long-term focus or anything. It’s a joke to have a gun. It’s a joke to pull a trigger.”

At one point, the former mayor brought up New York City’s stop-and-frisk practices, which gained national attention in 2011. Bloomberg said that during his last year in office, a minister at a Baptist church in Harlem invited him to speak.

“While I’m sitting there waiting for him to introduce me, he said to his congregation, ‘You know, if every one of you stopped and frisked your kid before they went out at night, the mayor wouldn’t have to do it,’” Bloomberg said. “And so I knew I was going to be okay with that audience.”

Minimum age limits for handguns, such as 25, seem not unreasonable.

———-

* 95% is exaggerated; domestic murders make up a sizable fraction of all murders. Still, I agree with Bloomberg’s unspoken assumption that mayors should be more concerned with murders in the street than in the living room, just as mayors should be more concerned with people getting killed in traffic accidents on the streets of their cities than with people getting accidentally drowning in bathtubs or falling off ladders while cleaning leaves out of their gutters.

 
Hide 108 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Steve, that’s why people find your opinions interesting. You’re always looking at an issue from a perspective that isn’t obvious, or that no one else is.

    Minimum age limits for handguns, such as 25, seem not unreasonable.

    A lot of those on the right won’t like that and think the minimum age should be much less.

    Stop and frisk was a success, despite the cacophony of controversy it generated.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Olorin
    I'm not liberal or conservative. However I did spend the first 25 years of MY life in a 60% black city that was like Ferguson, only worse...and still is. It took me till 25 to figure out how to get my mother, three abandoned nieces and nephews, myself, and an elderly aunt out of there. White flight dontchaknow.

    From the race riots that routinely burned down our business areas to the constant ongoing race war against the tiny minority of whites who remained because we couldn't afford to leave, life was a hell of threats, thefts, assaults (sexual and other), property damage, and murder (including one of the nephews, and the three-doors-down neighbor). I was shot at on three occasions and only the bad aim of the (black) shooters kept me from physical harm, though one time it did punch a hole in my car as I drove to work. This is how it was. The rest of America didn't care. It was too busy celebrating "civil rights" and practicing its program of demonizing white working class urban and rural Americans.

    I needed a handgun. I lived in terror for my life, my home, my family. I was not allowed one because I couldn't afford one after GCA68. We were as systematically disarmed as if Hitler's SS had come through. That was the purpose of GCA68--to control black gun violence by reserving gun ownership for the rich, and the other GC laws followed. By the time I was 18 there wasn't a place within 50 miles that one could go learn to shoot legally.

    It is unreasonable to rob responsible, careful, intelligent young adults of their Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

    It is unreasonable to create age tests for the Bill of Rights--if we can rob people under 25 of RKBA, then next we can rob people over 60, or women, or any group. And our system of law DOES NOT WORK LIKE THAT. Targeting people for loss of constitutionally protected rights on the basis of race, age, or anything IS WRONG. There may not be many black adults aged 21 to 25 who aren't criminal (especially the males) and smart and orderly enough to use guns intelligently--but there are likely at least thousands. They should not lose the right to keep and bear arms.

    Stop and frisk was a success NOT because of racial profiling or age profiling but because of far more complex things, including perps acting like perps, and LE knowing the reputation of individuals, or the semiotics of their movement patterns through a city (where the violence/drug deals/gang wars/etc. happen, paths to and from that).

    I was absolutely law abiding as a young adult, and teen, and I still am. I never abused any of my constitutionally protected rights. Why should I, or others like me, be punished because of those who do?

    New laws for gun ownership and use will do NOTHING to rein in those who break the law. For god's sake, why can't people get this into their heads? I was disarmed and terrified most of my young life--with all the insomnia (listening for break ins), ulcers (from worry for my family), and other health problems it caused. I had no way of protecting those I loved and was responsible for.

    I am not Scots Irish. The tradition of firearms ownership transmitted by the Second Amendment is NOT Celtic. Read Blackstone. Look for a documentary by David T Hardy called In Search of the Second Amendment. And Mr Sailer, please stick to topics you know something about because frankly you sound rather silly on this one. Gun control doesn't work. But our system of law does not allow us to go specifically after those we know are actually causing crimes. Further criminalizing gun ownership will do NOTHING.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Love ya Steve, but up till ’04, urban white liberals probably didn’t fear guns because of blacks. First, they never really believed that blacks are dangerous. They believed that showing blacks respect was all you had to do to be safe. And I don’t recall much in the news about white kids getting caught in the crossfire of a dispute over Air Jordans. Kids, of course, don’t get carjacked since they’re mostly not driving. Blacks never needed guns to kick a kid’s head in, and I doubt you really think that ‘Coexist’ types didn’t know that. Post-Obama we began to hear of horrible murders of whites involving guns, but that was after your speculation. So I think we’re still looking for the driver of the original lib distaste for guns.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  3. They just don’t have any long term focus

    Careful there, Bloomy. Skating dangerously close to HBD.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  4. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    No, I don’t think that’s the real target. Private gun ownership is a cultural tradition of the real Scots-Irish. It’s something that distinguishes them from all other European-derived groups, so it’s strongly tied to their sense of ethnic pride. Bloomberg’s kind of Scots-Irish don’t like to see ethnic pride among first-world peoples. They like to see their potential competitors atomized and divided. Ethnic pride unites.

    In Bloomberg this motivation must have been joined by the fact that he cared about New York. And New York benefited from stop-and-frisk. But Jews who have never lived in large, crime-infested cities are anti-gun too, purely for the reason that I described in the first paragraph.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  5. The minimum age to purchase a handgun right now is 21. This does not do much to stop violent black teenagers from acquiring handguns.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  6. You’re partly right, Steve. Of course, policing the streets is easier if criminals don’t hace guns. But that’s not the whole story. Elites don’t really like the idea of anybody except themselves and their bodyguards having guns.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Luis
    Like Charles Schumer, as Exhibit A. A year or so ago, I looked up the 'Sullivan Act" on Wikipedia, and it said that Schumer owns a gun permit issued by New York City.

    The height of brazen hypocrisy, given how virulently hostile Schumer is towards the Second Amendment.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. ” Red-region white conservatives, insulated by distance from the Crips and the Bloods, don’t care that white liberals’ kids are in peril.”

    So red region White conservatives also live far away from the ghetto Black underclass just like blue region White liberals. Which crushes the theory that many iSteve readers have that the reason red state White Southerners vote overwhelmingly Republican is because they tend to live in the very same zip codes as the ghetto Black underclass and thus come in direct contact on a daily basis to the worst criminal elements of the African American community.

    So Duck Dynasty Southern type rednecks are not living next door to Omar Little type Blacks from The Wire.

    So there has to be another reason they overwhelmingly vote Republican and it is not because they are in extreme danger of having their neighborhoods terrorized by Omar Little looking thugs, because the vast majority red state Southern Republicans do not live in extremely vibrantly diverse zip codes.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  8. >Minimum age limits for handguns, such as 25, seem not unreasonable<

    good luck with that

    Police Probably Couldn’t Believe What Florida Man Listed as His Occupation on Arrest Report

    Read More
    • Replies: @fish

    Police Probably Couldn’t Believe What Florida Man Listed as His Occupation on Arrest Report

     

    Oh I don't imagine that the statement was that big a surprise to the cops....from either the reality or an ironic perspective.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. The vibrant community unfortunately doesn’t follow gun control laws. It is a months long process to legally obtain a firearm for home defense in New York City, and carrying a concealed handgun legally is nearly impossible.

    The reason white liberals like Bloomberg care so much about gun control in distant red states when it is inner city minority crime that actually effects white libera quality of life is because lax gun control states are the source for black market guns in the inner city.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    The reason white liberals like Bloomberg care so much about gun control in distant red states when it is inner city minority crime that actually effects white libera quality of life is because lax gun control states are the source for black market guns in the inner city.

    I think another reason Bloomberg hates guns is the same reason that medieval knights hated crossbows, with which a peasant could penetrate his armor. He fears the threat they represent. Bloomberg hates average Americans and therefore, in a dynamic Steve often points out, projects his hatred onto them, making him feel they would like to kill him. He's afraid some peasant with a gun may eventually get past his security, or that of one of his children.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. I have absolutely no problem with SQF (Stop-Question-Frisk) in New York. I only wish more cities would do it. (Hello, St. Louis. Are you listening?)

    My big problem is with Bloomberg’s “for me but not for thee” hypocrisy. He was running around all over Sanford, Florida during the height of Trayvonmania whining about Florida’s SYG (Stand Your Ground) provisions, which are of course SQF by any other means.

    At the time, I thought he was only doing it to take the political heat off of him for SQF. Then after carefully paying attention to Steve Sailer, I realized that there is a method to Bloomy’s madness. Complain about “racism” everywhere else so that nobody in Everywhere Else Ville is able to organize when New York dumps its ghetto underclass undertow blacks on Everywhere Else Ville.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  11. “First, they never really believed that blacks are dangerous. They believed that showing blacks respect was all you had to do to be safe.”

    What does it mean to show Blacks respect ? Do you have to fist bump a Sista or a Brotha every time you see one ?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  12. I’m all in favor of gun control in New York City. Miss the guy breaking into your house and the bullet goes through the wall and hits your neighbor in his bathtub.

    But, Bloomy, why can’t people in rural New York State or New Mexico own guns?

    This always annoyed me, because I otherwise liked Bloomberg–he kept my elderly parents in NYC safe for 12 years and I was all behind him on the Big Gulps. I’m sorry, but when a third of your country’s overweight and a third’s obese, it’s time to do *something*. Guns are a worthwhile freedom, but 32-ounce cups of soda?

    Read More
    • Replies: @grey enlightenment
    the big gulp ban was really just a math test to see who could figure out that 2x 16oz drinks equals one big gulp.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. The notion that laws prevent people from obtaining contraband has been disproved since forever. How did that prohibition thing work out? How about criminalizing pot, meth, heroin, peyote, etc.? Are we now drug free? To legally obtain a firearm, the purchaser must go through a background check at the point of purchase. To conceal carry most states require training and background checks. We have all the laws we need. What we don’t have are people obeying the law. More and harsher laws will accomplish nothing. An armed citizenry is the best defense in the increasingly lawless world we live in. Also it gives the statists something to think about.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dumbo
    What prohibition laws do is reduce availability and increase price. This benefit some.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. “What blue-region white liberals actually want is for the government to disarm the dangerous urban minorities that threaten their children’s safety. ”

    I’m skeptical of this; if liberals were actually trying to accomplish something, surely they would have noticed by now that no gun control law has ever reduced crime. Looks to me like it’s just moral preening combined with the urge to stick it to NOKDs.

    Read More
    • Replies: @yaqub the mad scientist
    OK, I've chewed on the NOKD acronym for a minute now. It's a new one for me. What does it mean?
    , @keypusher
    Well, liberals look around the world and observe that developed countries with strict gun control and low rates of gun ownership have fewer murders than we do. They believe that gun control will reduce crime. You may think they're crazy, but they are quite sincere in their belief.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. Overthinking it. Blue state liberals, even if actually more concerned about black violence, aren’t being inconsistent by targeting red state conservatives. It’s the latter who keep guns more widely available through voting and giving succor to the NRA, not poor urban minorities.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Overthinking it. Blue state liberals, even if actually more concerned about black violence, aren’t being inconsistent by targeting red state conservatives. It’s the latter who keep guns more widely available…
     
    In other words, those rednecks just aren't racist enough. They let colored buy guns.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. Red-region white conservatives, insulated by distance from the Crips and the Blood

    Although I agree with Steve that northern whites are really mostly about disarming bad blacks, I think he gets a few things wrong.

    Red staters aren’t insulated from blacks; much of the south is divided into very large black sections and white sections that try not to interact, but the distance isn’t that huge. Red staters like that blacks have an unnatural and very over-exaggerated fear of of a redneck killing spree (a fear encouraged by media’s depiction of evil Klan/Neo-Nazi conspiracies and murders everywhere), and that the quickest way to make some trouble-making black teens feeling their oats in the white part of the county is for a few white guys to show up with gun racks on their trucks and boldness in their voices.

    In short, red staters have learned that image of white men with guns is enough to keep most blacks in line or in their own neighborhood. Add to that the fact that while policing has massively increased in blue areas, it hasn’t in red, so red staters are still self-helping on that one. And, of course, the very recent memory of the federal government imposing severe social engineering using the national guard in the massively red south reminds all red staters that it could very well to them from a hostile blue government—the only blue state area to suffer such a moment of violent government intervention in recent memory was Boston in the 1970s, and blue collar Bostonians still harbor very anti-black feelings, way more so that most blue state denziens.

    The northern attack on guns is partially a religious rationalization: the destruction of Jim Crow and forced busing didn’t bring a paradise of black virtue, and blacks are still murdering each other at extreme rates and getting non-blacks mad at them for committing crimes, and no matter how much welfare you give them they keep attacking, so the problem must be…guns! Yes! Evil guns! That is forcing people (mostly blacks) to commit crimes! Like blaming a war on the lack of religious conviction of the people rather than the greed of the king.

    Read More
    • Replies: @donut
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_race_riot

    Tulsa had no riots in the 60's or 70's .
    , @advancedatheist

    Red staters like that blacks have an unnatural and very over-exaggerated fear of of a redneck killing spree
     
    That fear probably kept Tulsa's black community in line during the 1960's, when blacks misbehaved in other American cities. (Funny how the media don't remind us about that.) The black elders in north Tulsa probably told the young hotheads what happened to their community in 1921, and that discouraged them from imitating what they saw blacks do on TV in other parts of the country.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_race_riot
    , @Reg Cæsar

    The northern attack on guns is partially a religious rationalization…
     
    I think you mean "urban attack on guns".

    How is gun control faring in Maine, Vermont, the Dakotas and Idaho? Washington was the first state to adopt shall-issue concealed carry, in 1967, long before any kind was allowed in Texas.

    Gun law strictness doesn't correlate with the Canadian border.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. “domestic murders make up a sizable fraction of all murders.”

    I read somewhere years ago that in domestic murder cases most men die in the kitchen and most women in the bedroom so take note . When it gets hot move the argument accordingly.

    Having had a knife pulled on me and a tooth knocked out with a phone and not inclined to spend life in prison for murder I found the best place to be is out the f**king door .

    I’ve posted this before but will again Dianne Feinstein on guns for her :

    http://www.americanthinker.com/video/2012/12/hypocrite_anti-gun_sen_feinstein_confesses_concealed_weapon_for_her_own_self-defense.html

    and guns for the rest of us :

    http://www.ontheissues.org/Domestic/Dianne_Feinstein_Gun_Control.htm

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  18. “Minimum age limits for handguns, such as 25, seem not unreasonable.”

    A minimum age limit of 16 is also not unreasonable. So what? The issue cannot be solved by rational debate. As df-34 pointed out, handguns, rifles, and shotguns are a cultural tradition and fundamental component of many American households. The Scots-Irish and other pioneer cultures have compromised plenty and contributed generously to the building of this polyglot nation. And now they should cede their right to free ownership of firearms? For what? What are they offered in return for sacrifice of their patrimony? Nothing. Or rather, the right to be left in peace for a few weeks until the next demand arrives via courier from New York.

    The issue is far too primal to be settled via legislative debate.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  19. @whorefinder

    Red-region white conservatives, insulated by distance from the Crips and the Blood
     
    Although I agree with Steve that northern whites are really mostly about disarming bad blacks, I think he gets a few things wrong.

    Red staters aren't insulated from blacks; much of the south is divided into very large black sections and white sections that try not to interact, but the distance isn't that huge. Red staters like that blacks have an unnatural and very over-exaggerated fear of of a redneck killing spree (a fear encouraged by media's depiction of evil Klan/Neo-Nazi conspiracies and murders everywhere), and that the quickest way to make some trouble-making black teens feeling their oats in the white part of the county is for a few white guys to show up with gun racks on their trucks and boldness in their voices.

    In short, red staters have learned that image of white men with guns is enough to keep most blacks in line or in their own neighborhood. Add to that the fact that while policing has massively increased in blue areas, it hasn't in red, so red staters are still self-helping on that one. And, of course, the very recent memory of the federal government imposing severe social engineering using the national guard in the massively red south reminds all red staters that it could very well to them from a hostile blue government---the only blue state area to suffer such a moment of violent government intervention in recent memory was Boston in the 1970s, and blue collar Bostonians still harbor very anti-black feelings, way more so that most blue state denziens.

    The northern attack on guns is partially a religious rationalization: the destruction of Jim Crow and forced busing didn't bring a paradise of black virtue, and blacks are still murdering each other at extreme rates and getting non-blacks mad at them for committing crimes, and no matter how much welfare you give them they keep attacking, so the problem must be...guns! Yes! Evil guns! That is forcing people (mostly blacks) to commit crimes! Like blaming a war on the lack of religious conviction of the people rather than the greed of the king.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_race_riot

    Tulsa had no riots in the 60′s or 70′s .

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. Minimum age limits for handguns, such as 25, seem not unreasonable.

    A lot of those on the right won’t like that and think the minimum age should be much less.

    The problem I have is the old “old enough to fight for their country” saw. It has bite. By what right do we restrict domestic gun rights of people judged old enough to fight and die for their country, for another 3 years, never mind another 7.

    No, let those NAM-heavy urban juridsictions clean up their own back yards with local policies and legislation. No need to restrict the rights of people who aren’t abusing the Bill of Rights in order to restrict those that are.

    So I think we’re still looking for the driver of the original lib distaste for guns.

    Especially when gun-grabbers go for Assault Rifles (suburban and rural white favorites which have no real role in the urban violence Bloomberg’s talking about) and don’t go for handguns (which are the primary way urban whites defend themselves, and urban blacks murder each other and threaten urban whites).

    No, I don’t think that’s the real target. Private gun ownership is a cultural tradition of the real Scots-Irish. It’s something that distinguishes them from all other European-derived groups, so it’s strongly tied to their sense of ethnic pride. Bloomberg’s kind of Scots-Irish don’t like to see ethnic pride among first-world peoples. They like to see their potential competitors atomized and divided. Ethnic pride unites.

    Let’s just go ahead and admit that “liberals,” AKA leftist extremists, don’t like the 2nd Amendment. They don’t like what it’s designed for: so the citizenry can stockpile firearms against a tyrannical gov’t. If they could put a stop to it, they would.

    Elites don’t really like the idea of anybody except themselves and their bodyguards having guns.

    Correct. Only the gov’t and rich people should have guns.

    The reason white liberals like Bloomberg care so much about gun control in distant red states when it is inner city minority crime that actually effects white libera quality of life is because lax gun control states are the source for black market guns in the inner city.

    And since we have no way of controlling places outside US law like Mexico, the argument falls flat; there will always be some place where “lax control” is causing NAM violence in lib strongholds.

    But libs try their mightiest to make the argument that gun liberty causes violent crime. If that’s the case, then lib states should be fine by controlling their own back yards.

    I’m all in favor of gun control in New York City. Miss the guy breaking into your house and the bullet goes through the wall and hits your neighbor in his bathtub.

    Shotguns with buckshot rounds. I doubt they’d penetrate sheet rock. Course, your typical handgun rounds won’t penetrate a decent bathtub, either. 9mm ball ammo bounces off hard plastic, and won’t even lodge in a tree. Self-defense rounds penetrate less than ball.

    I was all behind him on the Big Gulps. I’m sorry, but when a third of your country’s overweight and a third’s obese, it’s time to do *something*. Guns are a worthwhile freedom, but 32-ounce cups of soda?

    Libs put all the taxpayers on the hook for fatties’ health. Then they take away everyone’s freedoms because the taxpayers are on the hook for fatties’ health. Sounds like a scam to me.

    The notion that laws prevent people from obtaining contraband has been disproved since forever. How did that prohibition thing work out? How about criminalizing pot, meth, heroin, peyote, etc.? Are we now drug free?

    On the other hand, drug charges are a great way to jail a criminal. They have to keep the evidence on them, or close by. Murderers, assailants, thieves, they can dispose of the evidence ASAP.

    Overthinking it. Blue state liberals, even if actually more concerned about black violence, aren’t being inconsistent by targeting red state conservatives. It’s the latter who keep guns more widely available through voting and giving succor to the NRA, not poor urban minorities

    Lol, nice spin. It’s the urban blacks doing the killing, which is what worries urban whites. Rural and suburban whites aren’t doing the violence, or forcing anything on urban jurisdictions, who are free to do what they want.

    This “lax gun laws make it possible” thing is bogus. The laws are always lax somewhere, and when federal laws fail to solve the problem of black violence, Mexico or Latin America or China will be blamed.

    In short, red staters have learned that image of white men with guns is enough to keep most blacks in line or in their own neighborhood.

    Right, and that’s a very bad thing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @countenance
    The problem I have is the old “old enough to fight for their country” saw.

    No handgun for you, but here's a voter registration form at age 18 and the condom bowl at age 12. Then again, since I've crossed over the event horizon into the Dark Enlightenment, I'm no longer concerned about philosophical bafflegabbery over "but if they can vote."

    And since we have no way of controlling places outside US law like Mexico, the argument falls flat; there will always be some place where “lax control” is causing NAM violence in lib strongholds.

    The excuseologist will always be able to find or cook up an exculpatory excuse. That's what they do.
    , @Peter Akuleyev

    Let’s just go ahead and admit that “liberals,” AKA leftist extremists, don’t like the 2nd Amendment. They don’t like what it’s designed for: so the citizenry can stockpile firearms against a tyrannical gov’t. If they could put a stop to it, they would
     
    .

    If that is what the 2nd Amendment is designed for, it is totally useless. This is basically romantic Civil War revisionism disguised as a call for liberty. History shows that when citizens stockpile arms, they usually end up installing an even more tyrannical government. The Bolsheviks were installed by millions of armed ordinary Russians chasing out the elites. The Nazis encouraged wide spread gun ownership because they knew they could count on the majority to keep the minority of dissidents and Jews under control. An effective tyrannical government is never threatened by armed citizens because the rulers know how to acquire the support of local elites, decision makers and influential people, the people who will encourage the ordinary armed citizens not to rise up. Life is not like "Red Dawn".

    It is depressing to consider how few examples there are in world history of a free citizenry actually chasing out a tyrannical government and replacing it with free effective republican government.
    , @Chris Mallory

    Shotguns with buckshot rounds. I doubt they’d penetrate sheet rock. Course, your typical handgun rounds won’t penetrate a decent bathtub, either. 9mm ball ammo bounces off hard plastic, and won’t even lodge in a tree. Self-defense rounds penetrate less than ball.
     
    This advice will get someone killed. Testing by The Box O'Truth website has shown that buckshot will penetrate 4 walls (8 sheets of drywall on 2x4 frames). So will every handgun round. Even lowly #8 birdshot will penetrate one wall.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Minimum age limits for handguns, such as 25, seem not unreasonable.

    Proposition reminds Ivan of old parable of camel who tried to wedge slippery foot one inch into door of tent to join domino game. In old country we have similar much better saying, offer small finger, lose hand.

    To mind of Ivan much better effect to simply prohibit gun ownership from chocolate man.

    Read More
    • Replies: @E. Rekshun
    ...much better effect to simply prohibit gun ownership from chocolate man.

    Sounds good, but too bad it wouldn't work. Felons are already prohibited from legally owning guns. And, what, 40% of all adult black males are convicted felons.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. advancedatheist [AKA "RedneckCryonicist"] says:
    @whorefinder

    Red-region white conservatives, insulated by distance from the Crips and the Blood
     
    Although I agree with Steve that northern whites are really mostly about disarming bad blacks, I think he gets a few things wrong.

    Red staters aren't insulated from blacks; much of the south is divided into very large black sections and white sections that try not to interact, but the distance isn't that huge. Red staters like that blacks have an unnatural and very over-exaggerated fear of of a redneck killing spree (a fear encouraged by media's depiction of evil Klan/Neo-Nazi conspiracies and murders everywhere), and that the quickest way to make some trouble-making black teens feeling their oats in the white part of the county is for a few white guys to show up with gun racks on their trucks and boldness in their voices.

    In short, red staters have learned that image of white men with guns is enough to keep most blacks in line or in their own neighborhood. Add to that the fact that while policing has massively increased in blue areas, it hasn't in red, so red staters are still self-helping on that one. And, of course, the very recent memory of the federal government imposing severe social engineering using the national guard in the massively red south reminds all red staters that it could very well to them from a hostile blue government---the only blue state area to suffer such a moment of violent government intervention in recent memory was Boston in the 1970s, and blue collar Bostonians still harbor very anti-black feelings, way more so that most blue state denziens.

    The northern attack on guns is partially a religious rationalization: the destruction of Jim Crow and forced busing didn't bring a paradise of black virtue, and blacks are still murdering each other at extreme rates and getting non-blacks mad at them for committing crimes, and no matter how much welfare you give them they keep attacking, so the problem must be...guns! Yes! Evil guns! That is forcing people (mostly blacks) to commit crimes! Like blaming a war on the lack of religious conviction of the people rather than the greed of the king.

    Red staters like that blacks have an unnatural and very over-exaggerated fear of of a redneck killing spree

    That fear probably kept Tulsa’s black community in line during the 1960′s, when blacks misbehaved in other American cities. (Funny how the media don’t remind us about that.) The black elders in north Tulsa probably told the young hotheads what happened to their community in 1921, and that discouraged them from imitating what they saw blacks do on TV in other parts of the country.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_race_riot

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. @Front toward enemy
    The notion that laws prevent people from obtaining contraband has been disproved since forever. How did that prohibition thing work out? How about criminalizing pot, meth, heroin, peyote, etc.? Are we now drug free? To legally obtain a firearm, the purchaser must go through a background check at the point of purchase. To conceal carry most states require training and background checks. We have all the laws we need. What we don't have are people obeying the law. More and harsher laws will accomplish nothing. An armed citizenry is the best defense in the increasingly lawless world we live in. Also it gives the statists something to think about.

    What prohibition laws do is reduce availability and increase price. This benefit some.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. @SFG
    I'm all in favor of gun control in New York City. Miss the guy breaking into your house and the bullet goes through the wall and hits your neighbor in his bathtub.

    But, Bloomy, why can't people in rural New York State or New Mexico own guns?

    This always annoyed me, because I otherwise liked Bloomberg--he kept my elderly parents in NYC safe for 12 years and I was all behind him on the Big Gulps. I'm sorry, but when a third of your country's overweight and a third's obese, it's time to do *something*. Guns are a worthwhile freedom, but 32-ounce cups of soda?

    the big gulp ban was really just a math test to see who could figure out that 2x 16oz drinks equals one big gulp.

    Read More
    • Replies: @countenance
    Equals? Don't you mean "more expensive than?"
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. @Svigor

    Minimum age limits for handguns, such as 25, seem not unreasonable.

    A lot of those on the right won’t like that and think the minimum age should be much less.
     

    The problem I have is the old "old enough to fight for their country" saw. It has bite. By what right do we restrict domestic gun rights of people judged old enough to fight and die for their country, for another 3 years, never mind another 7.

    No, let those NAM-heavy urban juridsictions clean up their own back yards with local policies and legislation. No need to restrict the rights of people who aren't abusing the Bill of Rights in order to restrict those that are.


    So I think we’re still looking for the driver of the original lib distaste for guns.
     
    Especially when gun-grabbers go for Assault Rifles (suburban and rural white favorites which have no real role in the urban violence Bloomberg's talking about) and don't go for handguns (which are the primary way urban whites defend themselves, and urban blacks murder each other and threaten urban whites).

    No, I don’t think that’s the real target. Private gun ownership is a cultural tradition of the real Scots-Irish. It’s something that distinguishes them from all other European-derived groups, so it’s strongly tied to their sense of ethnic pride. Bloomberg’s kind of Scots-Irish don’t like to see ethnic pride among first-world peoples. They like to see their potential competitors atomized and divided. Ethnic pride unites.
     
    Let's just go ahead and admit that "liberals," AKA leftist extremists, don't like the 2nd Amendment. They don't like what it's designed for: so the citizenry can stockpile firearms against a tyrannical gov't. If they could put a stop to it, they would.

    Elites don’t really like the idea of anybody except themselves and their bodyguards having guns.
     
    Correct. Only the gov't and rich people should have guns.

    The reason white liberals like Bloomberg care so much about gun control in distant red states when it is inner city minority crime that actually effects white libera quality of life is because lax gun control states are the source for black market guns in the inner city.
     
    And since we have no way of controlling places outside US law like Mexico, the argument falls flat; there will always be some place where "lax control" is causing NAM violence in lib strongholds.

    But libs try their mightiest to make the argument that gun liberty causes violent crime. If that's the case, then lib states should be fine by controlling their own back yards.


    I’m all in favor of gun control in New York City. Miss the guy breaking into your house and the bullet goes through the wall and hits your neighbor in his bathtub.
     
    Shotguns with buckshot rounds. I doubt they'd penetrate sheet rock. Course, your typical handgun rounds won't penetrate a decent bathtub, either. 9mm ball ammo bounces off hard plastic, and won't even lodge in a tree. Self-defense rounds penetrate less than ball.

    I was all behind him on the Big Gulps. I’m sorry, but when a third of your country’s overweight and a third’s obese, it’s time to do *something*. Guns are a worthwhile freedom, but 32-ounce cups of soda?
     
    Libs put all the taxpayers on the hook for fatties' health. Then they take away everyone's freedoms because the taxpayers are on the hook for fatties' health. Sounds like a scam to me.

    The notion that laws prevent people from obtaining contraband has been disproved since forever. How did that prohibition thing work out? How about criminalizing pot, meth, heroin, peyote, etc.? Are we now drug free?
     
    On the other hand, drug charges are a great way to jail a criminal. They have to keep the evidence on them, or close by. Murderers, assailants, thieves, they can dispose of the evidence ASAP.

    Overthinking it. Blue state liberals, even if actually more concerned about black violence, aren’t being inconsistent by targeting red state conservatives. It’s the latter who keep guns more widely available through voting and giving succor to the NRA, not poor urban minorities
     
    Lol, nice spin. It's the urban blacks doing the killing, which is what worries urban whites. Rural and suburban whites aren't doing the violence, or forcing anything on urban jurisdictions, who are free to do what they want.

    This "lax gun laws make it possible" thing is bogus. The laws are always lax somewhere, and when federal laws fail to solve the problem of black violence, Mexico or Latin America or China will be blamed.


    In short, red staters have learned that image of white men with guns is enough to keep most blacks in line or in their own neighborhood.
     
    Right, and that's a very bad thing.

    The problem I have is the old “old enough to fight for their country” saw.

    No handgun for you, but here’s a voter registration form at age 18 and the condom bowl at age 12. Then again, since I’ve crossed over the event horizon into the Dark Enlightenment, I’m no longer concerned about philosophical bafflegabbery over “but if they can vote.”

    And since we have no way of controlling places outside US law like Mexico, the argument falls flat; there will always be some place where “lax control” is causing NAM violence in lib strongholds.

    The excuseologist will always be able to find or cook up an exculpatory excuse. That’s what they do.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JSM
    "bafflegabbery " Awesome word! Did you coin it? May I steal it?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. @grey enlightenment
    the big gulp ban was really just a math test to see who could figure out that 2x 16oz drinks equals one big gulp.

    Equals? Don’t you mean “more expensive than?”

    Read More
    • Replies: @grey enlightenment
    no, the joke is that if someone wants to drink more soda they will figure out a way, such as buying 2x of the smaller size drink
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. […] Source: Steve Sailer […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  28. @415 reasons
    The vibrant community unfortunately doesn't follow gun control laws. It is a months long process to legally obtain a firearm for home defense in New York City, and carrying a concealed handgun legally is nearly impossible.

    The reason white liberals like Bloomberg care so much about gun control in distant red states when it is inner city minority crime that actually effects white libera quality of life is because lax gun control states are the source for black market guns in the inner city.

    The reason white liberals like Bloomberg care so much about gun control in distant red states when it is inner city minority crime that actually effects white libera quality of life is because lax gun control states are the source for black market guns in the inner city.

    I think another reason Bloomberg hates guns is the same reason that medieval knights hated crossbows, with which a peasant could penetrate his armor. He fears the threat they represent. Bloomberg hates average Americans and therefore, in a dynamic Steve often points out, projects his hatred onto them, making him feel they would like to kill him. He’s afraid some peasant with a gun may eventually get past his security, or that of one of his children.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. @Dain
    Overthinking it. Blue state liberals, even if actually more concerned about black violence, aren't being inconsistent by targeting red state conservatives. It's the latter who keep guns more widely available through voting and giving succor to the NRA, not poor urban minorities.

    Overthinking it. Blue state liberals, even if actually more concerned about black violence, aren’t being inconsistent by targeting red state conservatives. It’s the latter who keep guns more widely available…

    In other words, those rednecks just aren’t racist enough. They let colored buy guns.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dain
    Only explaining the other side's thinking. If guns are bad and you let colored people buy them, you're wishing badness upon them.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. @whorefinder

    Red-region white conservatives, insulated by distance from the Crips and the Blood
     
    Although I agree with Steve that northern whites are really mostly about disarming bad blacks, I think he gets a few things wrong.

    Red staters aren't insulated from blacks; much of the south is divided into very large black sections and white sections that try not to interact, but the distance isn't that huge. Red staters like that blacks have an unnatural and very over-exaggerated fear of of a redneck killing spree (a fear encouraged by media's depiction of evil Klan/Neo-Nazi conspiracies and murders everywhere), and that the quickest way to make some trouble-making black teens feeling their oats in the white part of the county is for a few white guys to show up with gun racks on their trucks and boldness in their voices.

    In short, red staters have learned that image of white men with guns is enough to keep most blacks in line or in their own neighborhood. Add to that the fact that while policing has massively increased in blue areas, it hasn't in red, so red staters are still self-helping on that one. And, of course, the very recent memory of the federal government imposing severe social engineering using the national guard in the massively red south reminds all red staters that it could very well to them from a hostile blue government---the only blue state area to suffer such a moment of violent government intervention in recent memory was Boston in the 1970s, and blue collar Bostonians still harbor very anti-black feelings, way more so that most blue state denziens.

    The northern attack on guns is partially a religious rationalization: the destruction of Jim Crow and forced busing didn't bring a paradise of black virtue, and blacks are still murdering each other at extreme rates and getting non-blacks mad at them for committing crimes, and no matter how much welfare you give them they keep attacking, so the problem must be...guns! Yes! Evil guns! That is forcing people (mostly blacks) to commit crimes! Like blaming a war on the lack of religious conviction of the people rather than the greed of the king.

    The northern attack on guns is partially a religious rationalization…

    I think you mean “urban attack on guns”.

    How is gun control faring in Maine, Vermont, the Dakotas and Idaho? Washington was the first state to adopt shall-issue concealed carry, in 1967, long before any kind was allowed in Texas.

    Gun law strictness doesn’t correlate with the Canadian border.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Brutusale
    It shocks some people when they learn that Vermont has the loosest gum laws in the country.

    I use Vermont when my lib friends start bloviating about guns. If strict gun laws are necessary to prevent killing, why is Boston's murder rate rate far higher than Burlington's?

    Of course, with the idiotic Lutherans importing Bantus into northern New England, that equation may change.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. I’ve been listening to Steven Pinker’s lectures and interviews on YouTube. Brilliant man, I enjoy hearing what he has to say. In a talk on “The Better Angels of Our Nature,” he expresses his bewilderment that gun ownership is still so widespread in America. At the same time, smart man that he is, he understands that for those of us in the gun culture it’s non-negotiable. It’s the line in the sand. It’s also the only area in which the left hasn’t succeeded in its relentless assault on traditional America.

    Steven Pinker doesn’t understand why anyone would want to have a gun. I–and millions like me–can’t understand why anyone wouldn’t want a gun. Seriously, I don’t. How can a man settle down to sleep at night knowing that if he wakes up to the sound of his front door being kicked in, he’s defenseless? That if someone comes in and wants to do to his family what the burglars did to the wife and daughters of Dr. Petit of Cheshire, CT, in 2007, he’s not going to stop them.? How can he not want a fighting chance, come what may?

    It’s clear that you, Steve, like Pinker, can’t figure out the gun culture. It mystifies you, causing you to write things like “Minimum age limits for handguns, such as 25, seem not unreasonable,” which are not really relevant.

    It’s okay, we still hold you in great esteem.

    Read More
    • Replies: @keypusher
    I don't want a gun because I recognize that I am far likelier to shoot myself with it than shoot someone else. I live in NYC and I feel pretty safe. If I owned a gun, I would feel less safe than I do now.

    (In DC in the early 90s, on the other hand, I was terrified, and rightly so -- got robbed at gunpoint twice within a few blocks of my home.)

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. Alas I too have to disagree with this particular Steve theory:
    “White liberals, angered by white conservatives’ lack of racial solidarity with them, yet bereft of any vocabulary for expressing such a verboten concept, pretend that they need gun control to protect them from gun-crazy rural rednecks.”
    White progs desperately want racial solidarity with conservative whites? Don’t think its that at all. Its simple snobbery. They regard conservative whites as stupid and/or evil, and just about all their political opinions are status markers to demonstrate to the world that they’re not one of those type of white people. Gun control is but one such status marker.

    Read More
    • Replies: @meh
    This is it exactly. For most liberals it is all about social status signalling. It's why they are liberal, after all, and not conservative. In former times it might have been high status to be seen as conservative, but that hasn't been true since before WWII.

    There are different ultimate reasons for gun control. Gentile reasons and Jewish reasons differ. Jews support gun control for the same reason they supported disarming the peasants in medieval England or early modern Eastern Europe: their protection comes from the nobles (big government today) and they have good reason to fear the wrath of the peasants, because of the way they make their money. So, disarm the peasants, rely on the government for protection. Makes sense from their perspective.

    For white gentile liberals or DWLs, it is different. They don't really fear the white peasants, but they do want to have reasons to feel superior to them, and gun control is one issue that resonates. Red state whites as such don't kill blue state whites as such, or vice versa. This isn't Bleeding Kansas. There is no white racial solidarity (Steve is wrong about this), but neither is there real fear of intrawhite violence, either.

    Steve is wrong about liberals fearing for the safety of their own kids, too. The children of white liberals in blue states are almost never in danger of violence from urban NAMs. DWLs either move away from NAMs, or they force the NAMs to move away. They seldom actually fall foul of NAM violence because, disingenuously, they pretend it doesn't exist while taking active measures to ensure that they and their children avoid it. And they know perfectly well that gun control does not work and is never going to cause NAMs to become less violent. They have over half a century of failure of their own policies that prove this.

    Whatever its ultimate rationale, gun control isn't a safety issue for DWLs, it is a social status issue. The MSM propaganda says you have to have gun control to be "civilized" ergo it must be so. Status, not safety, is what matters to the disingenuous white liberal, in that he feels superior, ie part of the Establishment (even if he is really just a peon), and that means supporting elite policies whose ultimate rationale he is almost certainly ignorant of.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. @sabril
    "What blue-region white liberals actually want is for the government to disarm the dangerous urban minorities that threaten their children’s safety. "

    I'm skeptical of this; if liberals were actually trying to accomplish something, surely they would have noticed by now that no gun control law has ever reduced crime. Looks to me like it's just moral preening combined with the urge to stick it to NOKDs.

    OK, I’ve chewed on the NOKD acronym for a minute now. It’s a new one for me. What does it mean?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    Urban Dictionary: NOKD--"Not our kind, dear."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. @yaqub the mad scientist
    OK, I've chewed on the NOKD acronym for a minute now. It's a new one for me. What does it mean?

    Urban Dictionary: NOKD–”Not our kind, dear.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. @Reg Cæsar

    Overthinking it. Blue state liberals, even if actually more concerned about black violence, aren’t being inconsistent by targeting red state conservatives. It’s the latter who keep guns more widely available…
     
    In other words, those rednecks just aren't racist enough. They let colored buy guns.

    Only explaining the other side’s thinking. If guns are bad and you let colored people buy them, you’re wishing badness upon them.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. I think Steve has it backwards. The default, rational solution would seem to be gun control. It is the presence of NAMs, and the implicit threat that they present that drives American conservatives to cling to their guns. Every European country, and every Anglo-Saxon country without dangerous NAM minorities, has gun control laws. In all of these countries violent gun crime is much lower than in the US. People who live in the country side, the European equivalent of Steve’s “red region white conservatives”, have absolutely no problem acquiring guns if they want them. Every Austrian farmer I know has several guns, there are shooting clubs and gun ranges in Austria, we even invented the Glock. No one feels as if their rights are being infringed. The only people who are inconvenienced by gun control laws are criminals. If you were the kind of person who felt you needed to carry a handgun around Vienna to feel safe, you would be inconvenienced, but no one feels that way. People like Harry Baldwin @29 sound like raving lunatics from a European point of view. Who would want to live in a society where you really believe armed invaders are going to kick your door down at any moment? That is a failed society with no faith in its own government or policing authorities. It will be interesting to see, as more and more immigrants in Europe drive higher and higher crime, if we get greater calls for relaxing our gun laws, I suspect we will.

    Read More
    • Replies: @meh
    Yeah, the smug comments from Europeans about those 'crazy Americans and their guns' will die away once enough Europeans get to enjoy the joys of diversity.

    Guess what: Jews want the right to be armed in France. Will gentile white native Frenchmen get the same right? Probably not. Tough luck Frenchie. (ask Varg about what happens when your wife exercises her right to own .22 rifles in France)

    We American 'gun nuts' are not crazy: we just have our eyes open. Time to join us and stop indulging in social status games mocking those 'crazy Americans and their guns'.

    , @anonymous
    I suggest you listen to this speech by Sam Francis on the history and purpose of gun ownership. You might revise your history at least a bit. Well researched, and connects Machiavelli's republican ideas with the 17th/18th century British pamphleteers. It's the best academic discussion of the history of the idea of an armed citizenry I've encountered. Very thorough, and lists several writers I was not familiar with before.
    , @Twinkie

    People like Harry Baldwin @29 sound like raving lunatics from a European point of view.
     
    Then a woman* like you can go unarmed.

    I don't know any single real man who does not like weaponry. What boy doesn't like to play with toy guns and tanks?

    Having the right to guns is freedom. Molon Labe and all that.

    *My apologies to real women (my wife and daughters are all well-trained in the use of rifles, shotguns, handguns, and knives). In my family, all children start firearms training at age 5-6. I start with a rubber band gun, then airsoft, then BB gun, then a bolt-action 22 rifle, and so on.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. @Svigor

    Minimum age limits for handguns, such as 25, seem not unreasonable.

    A lot of those on the right won’t like that and think the minimum age should be much less.
     

    The problem I have is the old "old enough to fight for their country" saw. It has bite. By what right do we restrict domestic gun rights of people judged old enough to fight and die for their country, for another 3 years, never mind another 7.

    No, let those NAM-heavy urban juridsictions clean up their own back yards with local policies and legislation. No need to restrict the rights of people who aren't abusing the Bill of Rights in order to restrict those that are.


    So I think we’re still looking for the driver of the original lib distaste for guns.
     
    Especially when gun-grabbers go for Assault Rifles (suburban and rural white favorites which have no real role in the urban violence Bloomberg's talking about) and don't go for handguns (which are the primary way urban whites defend themselves, and urban blacks murder each other and threaten urban whites).

    No, I don’t think that’s the real target. Private gun ownership is a cultural tradition of the real Scots-Irish. It’s something that distinguishes them from all other European-derived groups, so it’s strongly tied to their sense of ethnic pride. Bloomberg’s kind of Scots-Irish don’t like to see ethnic pride among first-world peoples. They like to see their potential competitors atomized and divided. Ethnic pride unites.
     
    Let's just go ahead and admit that "liberals," AKA leftist extremists, don't like the 2nd Amendment. They don't like what it's designed for: so the citizenry can stockpile firearms against a tyrannical gov't. If they could put a stop to it, they would.

    Elites don’t really like the idea of anybody except themselves and their bodyguards having guns.
     
    Correct. Only the gov't and rich people should have guns.

    The reason white liberals like Bloomberg care so much about gun control in distant red states when it is inner city minority crime that actually effects white libera quality of life is because lax gun control states are the source for black market guns in the inner city.
     
    And since we have no way of controlling places outside US law like Mexico, the argument falls flat; there will always be some place where "lax control" is causing NAM violence in lib strongholds.

    But libs try their mightiest to make the argument that gun liberty causes violent crime. If that's the case, then lib states should be fine by controlling their own back yards.


    I’m all in favor of gun control in New York City. Miss the guy breaking into your house and the bullet goes through the wall and hits your neighbor in his bathtub.
     
    Shotguns with buckshot rounds. I doubt they'd penetrate sheet rock. Course, your typical handgun rounds won't penetrate a decent bathtub, either. 9mm ball ammo bounces off hard plastic, and won't even lodge in a tree. Self-defense rounds penetrate less than ball.

    I was all behind him on the Big Gulps. I’m sorry, but when a third of your country’s overweight and a third’s obese, it’s time to do *something*. Guns are a worthwhile freedom, but 32-ounce cups of soda?
     
    Libs put all the taxpayers on the hook for fatties' health. Then they take away everyone's freedoms because the taxpayers are on the hook for fatties' health. Sounds like a scam to me.

    The notion that laws prevent people from obtaining contraband has been disproved since forever. How did that prohibition thing work out? How about criminalizing pot, meth, heroin, peyote, etc.? Are we now drug free?
     
    On the other hand, drug charges are a great way to jail a criminal. They have to keep the evidence on them, or close by. Murderers, assailants, thieves, they can dispose of the evidence ASAP.

    Overthinking it. Blue state liberals, even if actually more concerned about black violence, aren’t being inconsistent by targeting red state conservatives. It’s the latter who keep guns more widely available through voting and giving succor to the NRA, not poor urban minorities
     
    Lol, nice spin. It's the urban blacks doing the killing, which is what worries urban whites. Rural and suburban whites aren't doing the violence, or forcing anything on urban jurisdictions, who are free to do what they want.

    This "lax gun laws make it possible" thing is bogus. The laws are always lax somewhere, and when federal laws fail to solve the problem of black violence, Mexico or Latin America or China will be blamed.


    In short, red staters have learned that image of white men with guns is enough to keep most blacks in line or in their own neighborhood.
     
    Right, and that's a very bad thing.

    Let’s just go ahead and admit that “liberals,” AKA leftist extremists, don’t like the 2nd Amendment. They don’t like what it’s designed for: so the citizenry can stockpile firearms against a tyrannical gov’t. If they could put a stop to it, they would

    .

    If that is what the 2nd Amendment is designed for, it is totally useless. This is basically romantic Civil War revisionism disguised as a call for liberty. History shows that when citizens stockpile arms, they usually end up installing an even more tyrannical government. The Bolsheviks were installed by millions of armed ordinary Russians chasing out the elites. The Nazis encouraged wide spread gun ownership because they knew they could count on the majority to keep the minority of dissidents and Jews under control. An effective tyrannical government is never threatened by armed citizens because the rulers know how to acquire the support of local elites, decision makers and influential people, the people who will encourage the ordinary armed citizens not to rise up. Life is not like “Red Dawn”.

    It is depressing to consider how few examples there are in world history of a free citizenry actually chasing out a tyrannical government and replacing it with free effective republican government.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    The Nazis encouraged wide spread gun ownership because they knew they could count on the majority to keep the minority of dissidents and Jews under control.

    Hitler relaxed rules regarding gun ownership for "his people" (as Eric Holder would put it) and banned Jews from owning firearms and other deadly weapons.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_legislation_in_Germany

    In the case of our government, it sees white conservatives as the enemy.
    , @map
    "The Bolsheviks were installed by millions of armed ordinary Russians chasing out the elites. The Nazis encouraged wide spread gun ownership because they knew they could count on the majority to keep the minority of dissidents and Jews under control."

    Sorry, the Bolsheviks were not installed by an armed majority. It was a coup staged by a well-organized minority. Besides, your average Russian was relatively disarmed anyway, which is why the Bolsheviks were so brutal.

    The Nazis were never as tyrannical toward the German people as the Bolsheviks were toward the Russians. Germans did not have their Kulaks.

    This is all just historical revisionism. The NSDAP was created to prevent a Bolshevik movement from appearing.

    You can tell what the anti-gun movement has in store for Americans by their rabid devotion to their cause. The depth of lying and dissembling in an effort to get rid of guns is not motivated by any concern for public safety. They want to do bad things to you and they cannot do those things if you are heavily armed.

    Are your European example provides is that Europeans are simply used to being subjects of the civil authority.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. @Peter Akuleyev
    I think Steve has it backwards. The default, rational solution would seem to be gun control. It is the presence of NAMs, and the implicit threat that they present that drives American conservatives to cling to their guns. Every European country, and every Anglo-Saxon country without dangerous NAM minorities, has gun control laws. In all of these countries violent gun crime is much lower than in the US. People who live in the country side, the European equivalent of Steve's "red region white conservatives", have absolutely no problem acquiring guns if they want them. Every Austrian farmer I know has several guns, there are shooting clubs and gun ranges in Austria, we even invented the Glock. No one feels as if their rights are being infringed. The only people who are inconvenienced by gun control laws are criminals. If you were the kind of person who felt you needed to carry a handgun around Vienna to feel safe, you would be inconvenienced, but no one feels that way. People like Harry Baldwin @29 sound like raving lunatics from a European point of view. Who would want to live in a society where you really believe armed invaders are going to kick your door down at any moment? That is a failed society with no faith in its own government or policing authorities. It will be interesting to see, as more and more immigrants in Europe drive higher and higher crime, if we get greater calls for relaxing our gun laws, I suspect we will.

    Yeah, the smug comments from Europeans about those ‘crazy Americans and their guns’ will die away once enough Europeans get to enjoy the joys of diversity.

    Guess what: Jews want the right to be armed in France. Will gentile white native Frenchmen get the same right? Probably not. Tough luck Frenchie. (ask Varg about what happens when your wife exercises her right to own .22 rifles in France)

    We American ‘gun nuts’ are not crazy: we just have our eyes open. Time to join us and stop indulging in social status games mocking those ‘crazy Americans and their guns’.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Peter Akuleyev
    American gun fetishism is an excellent example of treating the symptoms, not the disease. For the most part Europeans don't need to fear for their lives because we don't have the violent substrata that exists in the US. Rather than liberalize gun laws, it would make more sense to just keep those sort of people out of Europe in the first place. I agree that France is an excellent example of a country going in exactly the wrong direction.

    In Austria, Germany, and Italy it is fairly easy for a white, Christian landowner to own guns. Most of the aristocracy have guns at their country houses. It is more difficult for immigrants, urban socialists, the unemployed or psychopaths to own guns. To me that seems like the way a conservative system should work.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. The latest stats I have read had the white gun homicide rate at 1.9 per 100k while blacks were at 14 something per 100k – and I doubt the white rate is even that high, as certainly plenty of Hispanics were counted as white. That is one thing the gun control crowd in America or the “rational” Europeans never address with the idea that guns equal crime when comparing white nations to the US and the murder rates. We always get a comparison of how much higher the murder rate is here, but never an examination of how one group is responsible for almost all of the murder.

    Instead, the gun control crowd and the Europeans tend to focus on scary looking rifles – which FBI stats show in 2011 were involved in a total of 323 homicides, a lower figure than people beaten to death with bare fists, clubs, or stabbed to death with knives, and a figure that is at least 16 times lower than those shot with handguns – which reminds me of amnesty proponents focusing on the valedictorian DREAMer instead of the typical third world immigrant.

    The real reason was summed up by Col Jeff Cooper, who invented many of the modern day shooting tactics still used today. When politicians see mundane citizens with AKs and ARs, they don’t care if they are used against other citizens. What they truly fear is those rifles being used against them one day, and for good reason. What happened in Nevada last year where the Feds and local police were sent home with their tails between their legs is the tip of the iceberg of what could happen if enough people get mad enough.

    And as far as the street gangs and urban blacks, the one and only group of whites – besides immigrants from Russia and neighboring countries – they fear are redneck whites precisely because they know just about all of them have guns and will not hesitate to use them. The tv show Justified is based on the reality of how rednecks and hillbillies in flyover country actually behave.

    That is why the urban thugs stick to targeting the soft NY Times reading Starbucks drinking whites who they know are not armed and won’t fight back. It is also why there is so much hatred from the NYC and DC media for rednecks and the South – they are not like the white middle and working class citizens of NYC and essentially powerless.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  40. @Tom Regan
    Alas I too have to disagree with this particular Steve theory:
    "White liberals, angered by white conservatives’ lack of racial solidarity with them, yet bereft of any vocabulary for expressing such a verboten concept, pretend that they need gun control to protect them from gun-crazy rural rednecks."
    White progs desperately want racial solidarity with conservative whites? Don't think its that at all. Its simple snobbery. They regard conservative whites as stupid and/or evil, and just about all their political opinions are status markers to demonstrate to the world that they're not one of those type of white people. Gun control is but one such status marker.

    This is it exactly. For most liberals it is all about social status signalling. It’s why they are liberal, after all, and not conservative. In former times it might have been high status to be seen as conservative, but that hasn’t been true since before WWII.

    There are different ultimate reasons for gun control. Gentile reasons and Jewish reasons differ. Jews support gun control for the same reason they supported disarming the peasants in medieval England or early modern Eastern Europe: their protection comes from the nobles (big government today) and they have good reason to fear the wrath of the peasants, because of the way they make their money. So, disarm the peasants, rely on the government for protection. Makes sense from their perspective.

    For white gentile liberals or DWLs, it is different. They don’t really fear the white peasants, but they do want to have reasons to feel superior to them, and gun control is one issue that resonates. Red state whites as such don’t kill blue state whites as such, or vice versa. This isn’t Bleeding Kansas. There is no white racial solidarity (Steve is wrong about this), but neither is there real fear of intrawhite violence, either.

    Steve is wrong about liberals fearing for the safety of their own kids, too. The children of white liberals in blue states are almost never in danger of violence from urban NAMs. DWLs either move away from NAMs, or they force the NAMs to move away. They seldom actually fall foul of NAM violence because, disingenuously, they pretend it doesn’t exist while taking active measures to ensure that they and their children avoid it. And they know perfectly well that gun control does not work and is never going to cause NAMs to become less violent. They have over half a century of failure of their own policies that prove this.

    Whatever its ultimate rationale, gun control isn’t a safety issue for DWLs, it is a social status issue. The MSM propaganda says you have to have gun control to be “civilized” ergo it must be so. Status, not safety, is what matters to the disingenuous white liberal, in that he feels superior, ie part of the Establishment (even if he is really just a peon), and that means supporting elite policies whose ultimate rationale he is almost certainly ignorant of.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. Minimum age limits for handguns, such as 25, seem not unreasonable.

    That’s the sort of muddled thinking that got us into this mess in the first place!

    As though the gang bangers killing each other with handguns got theirs legally, at the legal age.

    Age 25 is the age when your car insurance rates go down. Maybe that’s what motivated your thought.

    At age 21 I had handguns and knew plenty of people my age who owned handguns, legally (this was in suburban northern California in the 1980s). Somehow we managed not to shoot and kill each other. Imagine that. I really don’t see how punishing law abiding people that age is going to solve anything. It is just another mindless feelgood measure that punishes the people who are not causing any problems.

    This all comes back to the reality that we are not allowed to discuss race, publicly, in this country, in a rational, truthful, factual manner. Anyone who tries to do so gets squashed. As long as this remains the reality, no solutions will be attainable.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Maj. Kong
    25 is the car rental age. For actuarial purposes, it is a good measure.

    27 is the ACA limit age for staying on parents insurance.

    Rightly or wrongly, restricting suffrage and other rights of the citizen to those older than those numbers makes some sense.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. It is depressing to consider how few examples there are in world history of a free citizenry actually chasing out a tyrannical government and replacing it with free effective republican government.

    You mean, apart from the American Revolution?

    Here’s a more recent example:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_%281946%29

    Read More
    • Replies: @Peter Akuleyev
    The American Revolution was hardly a battle against "tyranny". The British colonies were already the freest polities in the world, complete with local republican government, before the Revolution. It was basically a conservative revolution of landowners kicking out absentee landlords. What I see in world history is that landowners are the bulwark of freedom. The most free societies are generally those where a reasonably large percentage of the population owns land - Jefferson's "yeoman farmers". Land ownership gives you a sense of independence from the state, or your clan or whatever, that no laws or human rights declarations will ever provide. Land owners, including small farmers, should own guns. Switzerland is an excellent example in that regard, but even Austria and Germany are a lot "freer" than most Americans seem to realize. Far from being "smug", I am just disappointed at how ignorant Americans are about gun laws in Europe. For example, 32% of French citizens legally own guns, and in the countryside that percentage is much much higher. What some of us in Europe fail to understand is why Americans think it is a good idea to spread the franchise of gun ownership outside the land owning classes to people with no vested interest in defending society. The conspiracy theorist in me suspects the NRA actually wants NAMs to have more guns because I am sure tales of NAMs breaking into your house makes for great fundraising materials.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. @meh
    Yeah, the smug comments from Europeans about those 'crazy Americans and their guns' will die away once enough Europeans get to enjoy the joys of diversity.

    Guess what: Jews want the right to be armed in France. Will gentile white native Frenchmen get the same right? Probably not. Tough luck Frenchie. (ask Varg about what happens when your wife exercises her right to own .22 rifles in France)

    We American 'gun nuts' are not crazy: we just have our eyes open. Time to join us and stop indulging in social status games mocking those 'crazy Americans and their guns'.

    American gun fetishism is an excellent example of treating the symptoms, not the disease. For the most part Europeans don’t need to fear for their lives because we don’t have the violent substrata that exists in the US. Rather than liberalize gun laws, it would make more sense to just keep those sort of people out of Europe in the first place. I agree that France is an excellent example of a country going in exactly the wrong direction.

    In Austria, Germany, and Italy it is fairly easy for a white, Christian landowner to own guns. Most of the aristocracy have guns at their country houses. It is more difficult for immigrants, urban socialists, the unemployed or psychopaths to own guns. To me that seems like the way a conservative system should work.

    Read More
    • Replies: @meh
    It sure doesn't take long for the smug to exhibit itself from out European commentators.

    Live here a while and you will figure out that our "gun fetish" is hardly useless. It is treating plenty of diseases just fine, in the here and now.

    Kindly go read that link I provided. The USA in not Europe.
    , @map
    "In Austria, Germany, and Italy it is fairly easy for a white, Christian landowner to own guns. Most of the aristocracy have guns at their country houses. It is more difficult for immigrants, urban socialists, the unemployed or psychopaths to own guns. To me that seems like the way a conservative system should work."

    In America, the white, Christian landowner is the psychopath, according to the Civil Authorities.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. “And as far as the street gangs and urban blacks, the one and only group of whites – besides immigrants from Russia and neighboring countries”

    Blacks fear White immigrants ? You mean just like they feared that Bosnian man in St. Louis right ?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Maj. Kong
    They would fear Chechens
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. People like Harry Baldwin @29 sound like raving lunatics from a European point of view.

    That’s because Europeans are incredibly sheltered from reality, both by a (decaying) culture of high trust, which will not survive the importations of millions of non-whites, and by a disingenuous, lying, treasonous government/mass media complex that is hiding the truth from the public.

    Already in the UK you have higher crime rate (barring actual gun crimes) than in the USA; the UK has some crimes, like home invasion, that are almost unheard of in the USA. This is because even the dullest criminal in the USA has figured out he’s likely to get shot if he breaks in to someone’s home when it is occupied. Whereas in the UK and lots of other places in Europe, you are liable to be thrown in jail if you use deadly force to defend yourself from someone breaking into your home. The criminals are armed, law or no law. You don’t have a right to self-defense, and your home is not your castle, in Merry Old England.

    Sometimes peasant uprisings are necessary.

    —–

    Steve, something wrong when I try to reply directly to a person’s comment. The Preview Comment button does not work, and the Publish Comment button doesn’t seem to work until you hit it multiple times and it tells you that you are submitting comments too quickly. I do not have this problem when a I use the regular “leave a reply” box, as I am doing now.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  46. @Peter Akuleyev
    American gun fetishism is an excellent example of treating the symptoms, not the disease. For the most part Europeans don't need to fear for their lives because we don't have the violent substrata that exists in the US. Rather than liberalize gun laws, it would make more sense to just keep those sort of people out of Europe in the first place. I agree that France is an excellent example of a country going in exactly the wrong direction.

    In Austria, Germany, and Italy it is fairly easy for a white, Christian landowner to own guns. Most of the aristocracy have guns at their country houses. It is more difficult for immigrants, urban socialists, the unemployed or psychopaths to own guns. To me that seems like the way a conservative system should work.

    It sure doesn’t take long for the smug to exhibit itself from out European commentators.

    Live here a while and you will figure out that our “gun fetish” is hardly useless. It is treating plenty of diseases just fine, in the here and now.

    Kindly go read that link I provided. The USA in not Europe.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. In Austria, Germany, and Italy it is fairly easy for a white, Christian landowner to own guns. Most of the aristocracy have guns at their country houses. It is more difficult for immigrants, urban socialists, the unemployed or psychopaths to own guns. To me that seems like the way a conservative system should work.

    I suggest you study areas with higher non-white immigration before you start jumping to conclusions about what a “conservative” system should look like. You aren’t going to be allowed to keep your “conservative” system. Once enough non-whites are in place and have the vote, they will be used as a battering ram to take away your rights. Ask the South African whites. Especially farmers. As your population gets increasingly urban and non-white you won’t be allowed any “special” privileges or set asides. You made your deal with the Devil, ie “reasonable restrictions on rights” and eventually the Devil is going to get his due. Your posts are textbook conservative myopia.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  48. @BB753
    You're partly right, Steve. Of course, policing the streets is easier if criminals don't hace guns. But that's not the whole story. Elites don't really like the idea of anybody except themselves and their bodyguards having guns.

    Like Charles Schumer, as Exhibit A. A year or so ago, I looked up the ‘Sullivan Act” on Wikipedia, and it said that Schumer owns a gun permit issued by New York City.

    The height of brazen hypocrisy, given how virulently hostile Schumer is towards the Second Amendment.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. @Reg Cæsar

    The northern attack on guns is partially a religious rationalization…
     
    I think you mean "urban attack on guns".

    How is gun control faring in Maine, Vermont, the Dakotas and Idaho? Washington was the first state to adopt shall-issue concealed carry, in 1967, long before any kind was allowed in Texas.

    Gun law strictness doesn't correlate with the Canadian border.

    It shocks some people when they learn that Vermont has the loosest gum laws in the country.

    I use Vermont when my lib friends start bloviating about guns. If strict gun laws are necessary to prevent killing, why is Boston’s murder rate rate far higher than Burlington’s?

    Of course, with the idiotic Lutherans importing Bantus into northern New England, that equation may change.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. @Svigor

    Minimum age limits for handguns, such as 25, seem not unreasonable.

    A lot of those on the right won’t like that and think the minimum age should be much less.
     

    The problem I have is the old "old enough to fight for their country" saw. It has bite. By what right do we restrict domestic gun rights of people judged old enough to fight and die for their country, for another 3 years, never mind another 7.

    No, let those NAM-heavy urban juridsictions clean up their own back yards with local policies and legislation. No need to restrict the rights of people who aren't abusing the Bill of Rights in order to restrict those that are.


    So I think we’re still looking for the driver of the original lib distaste for guns.
     
    Especially when gun-grabbers go for Assault Rifles (suburban and rural white favorites which have no real role in the urban violence Bloomberg's talking about) and don't go for handguns (which are the primary way urban whites defend themselves, and urban blacks murder each other and threaten urban whites).

    No, I don’t think that’s the real target. Private gun ownership is a cultural tradition of the real Scots-Irish. It’s something that distinguishes them from all other European-derived groups, so it’s strongly tied to their sense of ethnic pride. Bloomberg’s kind of Scots-Irish don’t like to see ethnic pride among first-world peoples. They like to see their potential competitors atomized and divided. Ethnic pride unites.
     
    Let's just go ahead and admit that "liberals," AKA leftist extremists, don't like the 2nd Amendment. They don't like what it's designed for: so the citizenry can stockpile firearms against a tyrannical gov't. If they could put a stop to it, they would.

    Elites don’t really like the idea of anybody except themselves and their bodyguards having guns.
     
    Correct. Only the gov't and rich people should have guns.

    The reason white liberals like Bloomberg care so much about gun control in distant red states when it is inner city minority crime that actually effects white libera quality of life is because lax gun control states are the source for black market guns in the inner city.
     
    And since we have no way of controlling places outside US law like Mexico, the argument falls flat; there will always be some place where "lax control" is causing NAM violence in lib strongholds.

    But libs try their mightiest to make the argument that gun liberty causes violent crime. If that's the case, then lib states should be fine by controlling their own back yards.


    I’m all in favor of gun control in New York City. Miss the guy breaking into your house and the bullet goes through the wall and hits your neighbor in his bathtub.
     
    Shotguns with buckshot rounds. I doubt they'd penetrate sheet rock. Course, your typical handgun rounds won't penetrate a decent bathtub, either. 9mm ball ammo bounces off hard plastic, and won't even lodge in a tree. Self-defense rounds penetrate less than ball.

    I was all behind him on the Big Gulps. I’m sorry, but when a third of your country’s overweight and a third’s obese, it’s time to do *something*. Guns are a worthwhile freedom, but 32-ounce cups of soda?
     
    Libs put all the taxpayers on the hook for fatties' health. Then they take away everyone's freedoms because the taxpayers are on the hook for fatties' health. Sounds like a scam to me.

    The notion that laws prevent people from obtaining contraband has been disproved since forever. How did that prohibition thing work out? How about criminalizing pot, meth, heroin, peyote, etc.? Are we now drug free?
     
    On the other hand, drug charges are a great way to jail a criminal. They have to keep the evidence on them, or close by. Murderers, assailants, thieves, they can dispose of the evidence ASAP.

    Overthinking it. Blue state liberals, even if actually more concerned about black violence, aren’t being inconsistent by targeting red state conservatives. It’s the latter who keep guns more widely available through voting and giving succor to the NRA, not poor urban minorities
     
    Lol, nice spin. It's the urban blacks doing the killing, which is what worries urban whites. Rural and suburban whites aren't doing the violence, or forcing anything on urban jurisdictions, who are free to do what they want.

    This "lax gun laws make it possible" thing is bogus. The laws are always lax somewhere, and when federal laws fail to solve the problem of black violence, Mexico or Latin America or China will be blamed.


    In short, red staters have learned that image of white men with guns is enough to keep most blacks in line or in their own neighborhood.
     
    Right, and that's a very bad thing.

    Shotguns with buckshot rounds. I doubt they’d penetrate sheet rock. Course, your typical handgun rounds won’t penetrate a decent bathtub, either. 9mm ball ammo bounces off hard plastic, and won’t even lodge in a tree. Self-defense rounds penetrate less than ball.

    This advice will get someone killed. Testing by The Box O’Truth website has shown that buckshot will penetrate 4 walls (8 sheets of drywall on 2×4 frames). So will every handgun round. Even lowly #8 birdshot will penetrate one wall.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. Are you auditioning for a gig at TNR? I hear they have some openings. I’m certain you are already ashamed of your illogic.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  52. The most deplorable one [AKA "Fourth doorman of the apocalypse"] says:

    Minimum age limits for handguns, such as 25, seem not unreasonable.

    As an 18 year old I was very responsible with guns. But then, I’m white.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  53. @meh

    Minimum age limits for handguns, such as 25, seem not unreasonable.
     
    That's the sort of muddled thinking that got us into this mess in the first place!

    As though the gang bangers killing each other with handguns got theirs legally, at the legal age.

    Age 25 is the age when your car insurance rates go down. Maybe that's what motivated your thought.

    At age 21 I had handguns and knew plenty of people my age who owned handguns, legally (this was in suburban northern California in the 1980s). Somehow we managed not to shoot and kill each other. Imagine that. I really don't see how punishing law abiding people that age is going to solve anything. It is just another mindless feelgood measure that punishes the people who are not causing any problems.

    This all comes back to the reality that we are not allowed to discuss race, publicly, in this country, in a rational, truthful, factual manner. Anyone who tries to do so gets squashed. As long as this remains the reality, no solutions will be attainable.

    25 is the car rental age. For actuarial purposes, it is a good measure.

    27 is the ACA limit age for staying on parents insurance.

    Rightly or wrongly, restricting suffrage and other rights of the citizen to those older than those numbers makes some sense.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. @Jefferson
    "And as far as the street gangs and urban blacks, the one and only group of whites – besides immigrants from Russia and neighboring countries"

    Blacks fear White immigrants ? You mean just like they feared that Bosnian man in St. Louis right ?

    They would fear Chechens

    Read More
    • Replies: @rustbeltreader
    Ban pressure cookers! We're facing terrorists who are lone wolves. Chicago is rewilding and coyotes are on the make. Start city game commissions because the gaming commission and slot machines failed to produce enough losers to fund the parks, schools and libraries. Ban Big Gulps!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. @countenance
    Equals? Don't you mean "more expensive than?"

    no, the joke is that if someone wants to drink more soda they will figure out a way, such as buying 2x of the smaller size drink

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. I’m not sure that Steve is right about the motivations behind liberal support for gun control, though it is quite possible that he is.

    On the other hand, I’m quite sure that the problem of dealing with the social dysfunction of the lower classes, particularly that of lower-class blacks, is behind the knee-jerk liberal support of Planned Parenthood and abortion on demand. There is a great deal of historical evidence to such effect, going all the way back to the published opinions of Margaret Sanger.

    There seems to be an unspoken belief among white liberals that “family planning” (i.e., birth control and abortion) will be the deus ex machina that ultimately delivers them from the dilemmas of the multi-generational welfare dependency and inner-city crime that have been fostered by their social policies. Their slogan ought to be, “a Gosnell in every ghetto.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  57. @Anonymous
    Minimum age limits for handguns, such as 25, seem not unreasonable.

    Proposition reminds Ivan of old parable of camel who tried to wedge slippery foot one inch into door of tent to join domino game. In old country we have similar much better saying, offer small finger, lose hand.

    To mind of Ivan much better effect to simply prohibit gun ownership from chocolate man.

    …much better effect to simply prohibit gun ownership from chocolate man.

    Sounds good, but too bad it wouldn’t work. Felons are already prohibited from legally owning guns. And, what, 40% of all adult black males are convicted felons.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. @countenance
    The problem I have is the old “old enough to fight for their country” saw.

    No handgun for you, but here's a voter registration form at age 18 and the condom bowl at age 12. Then again, since I've crossed over the event horizon into the Dark Enlightenment, I'm no longer concerned about philosophical bafflegabbery over "but if they can vote."

    And since we have no way of controlling places outside US law like Mexico, the argument falls flat; there will always be some place where “lax control” is causing NAM violence in lib strongholds.

    The excuseologist will always be able to find or cook up an exculpatory excuse. That's what they do.

    “bafflegabbery ” Awesome word! Did you coin it? May I steal it?

    Read More
    • Replies: @countenance
    Yes you can steal it, but you're stealing it from Steve Sailer. He used "bafflegab" as a verb in one of his Taki articles last year. I was in a hurry when I wrote that comment above, and "bafflegab" occurred to me for some reason, and I just added the few extra letters to make it a noun.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. @newrouter
    >Minimum age limits for handguns, such as 25, seem not unreasonable<

    good luck with that


    Police Probably Couldn’t Believe What Florida Man Listed as His Occupation on Arrest Report

    Police Probably Couldn’t Believe What Florida Man Listed as His Occupation on Arrest Report

    Oh I don’t imagine that the statement was that big a surprise to the cops….from either the reality or an ironic perspective.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Peter Akuleyev
    I think Steve has it backwards. The default, rational solution would seem to be gun control. It is the presence of NAMs, and the implicit threat that they present that drives American conservatives to cling to their guns. Every European country, and every Anglo-Saxon country without dangerous NAM minorities, has gun control laws. In all of these countries violent gun crime is much lower than in the US. People who live in the country side, the European equivalent of Steve's "red region white conservatives", have absolutely no problem acquiring guns if they want them. Every Austrian farmer I know has several guns, there are shooting clubs and gun ranges in Austria, we even invented the Glock. No one feels as if their rights are being infringed. The only people who are inconvenienced by gun control laws are criminals. If you were the kind of person who felt you needed to carry a handgun around Vienna to feel safe, you would be inconvenienced, but no one feels that way. People like Harry Baldwin @29 sound like raving lunatics from a European point of view. Who would want to live in a society where you really believe armed invaders are going to kick your door down at any moment? That is a failed society with no faith in its own government or policing authorities. It will be interesting to see, as more and more immigrants in Europe drive higher and higher crime, if we get greater calls for relaxing our gun laws, I suspect we will.

    I suggest you listen to this speech by Sam Francis on the history and purpose of gun ownership. You might revise your history at least a bit. Well researched, and connects Machiavelli’s republican ideas with the 17th/18th century British pamphleteers. It’s the best academic discussion of the history of the idea of an armed citizenry I’ve encountered. Very thorough, and lists several writers I was not familiar with before.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. “SFG says:

    I’m all in favor of gun control in New York City. Miss the guy breaking into your house and the bullet goes through the wall and hits your neighbor in his bathtub.”

    Somebody who has been killed by an intruder might not think as you do, if they had the luxury of not being dead that is. Be responsible – take aim and shoot at close range. You could also kill your neighbor by starting a fire in your apartment that burns down the building. That’s life in the big city.

    And given that all the guns that protected Michael Bloomberg when he was mayor would have been discharged in a crowd of people (that’s the most likely scenario for an assassination attempt), then his bodyguards shouldn’t have been allowed to have them either. If the mayor NYC needs handguns to defend himself, how can he deny them to his constiuents?

    Of course, if New Yorkers want their city government to disarm them, then that’s their business. As far as I’m concerned New York is a foreign country anyway. I don’t care about them.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  62. As far as the latest points by the resident euro gun controller, I will address the main ones. He questions whether the 2nd amendment was really about having a check on the federal government from becoming out of control. Why don’t we ask James Madison, the Father of the Constituion? Here is what he had to say in Federalist 46:

    “Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”

    The funny thing is his line about being afraid to trust the people with arms is being echoed by a good Euro subject above still to this day! The other point about replacing a government with force leads to a worse govt is kind of humorous considering that is exactly how these United States were formed, and that we still have much stronger free speech and vastly stronger gun rights than the civilized Europe he brags about.

    The line about the Nazis is completely inaccurate, gun control revisionist fantasy that flies in the face of reality. The Nazis used the same government permission system that you advocate now to gradually disarm the public of anyone who was not a supporter of the Nazis. They inherited the system from the previous government, and went about disarming their enemies and the Jews in a legal manner. Eventually they passed a law that completely banned Jews from owning guns, and had revoked the permits from anyone else who was viewed as a threat to the state. I think we all know what happened next. Mao and china, Lenin/Stalin and the Soviet Union, Pol Pot in Cambodia, and a number of other nations all basically did the same thing – using the registration records and govt permission system for firearm ownership to disarm the enemies of the state and murder them all. No one even knows for sure how many people were murdered by their own governments in the last century, but easily over 100 million were victims after careful gun control schemes were implemented.

    I view having the govt raid newspapers and destroy computers or throw in jail people for political speech as crazy, but that seems to be accepted by the submissive Europeans. And no, the elites and the government here do not view firearms ownership as a joke, or else there would not be a relentless effort to ban them from the same people pushing mass immigration.

    Here is what Delta Force vet made famous from Black hawk Down had to say about what would happen if mass gun confiscation attempts took place:

    http://blog.wilsoncombat.com/paul-howe/2nd-amendment-and-the-kool-aid-drinkers-by-paul-howe/

    Hint: the govt would get its ass kicked. But I am sure you have more knowledge and experience with military tactics than a delta force commando who fought rebels in Somalia, right?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  63. @meh

    It is depressing to consider how few examples there are in world history of a free citizenry actually chasing out a tyrannical government and replacing it with free effective republican government.
     
    You mean, apart from the American Revolution?

    Here's a more recent example:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_%281946%29

    The American Revolution was hardly a battle against “tyranny”. The British colonies were already the freest polities in the world, complete with local republican government, before the Revolution. It was basically a conservative revolution of landowners kicking out absentee landlords. What I see in world history is that landowners are the bulwark of freedom. The most free societies are generally those where a reasonably large percentage of the population owns land – Jefferson’s “yeoman farmers”. Land ownership gives you a sense of independence from the state, or your clan or whatever, that no laws or human rights declarations will ever provide. Land owners, including small farmers, should own guns. Switzerland is an excellent example in that regard, but even Austria and Germany are a lot “freer” than most Americans seem to realize. Far from being “smug”, I am just disappointed at how ignorant Americans are about gun laws in Europe. For example, 32% of French citizens legally own guns, and in the countryside that percentage is much much higher. What some of us in Europe fail to understand is why Americans think it is a good idea to spread the franchise of gun ownership outside the land owning classes to people with no vested interest in defending society. The conspiracy theorist in me suspects the NRA actually wants NAMs to have more guns because I am sure tales of NAMs breaking into your house makes for great fundraising materials.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Chris Mallory

    What some of us in Europe fail to understand is why Americans think it is a good idea to spread the franchise of gun ownership outside the land owning classes to people with no vested interest in defending society
     
    Because bearing arms is a basic human right. I bear arms to defend my family, my self and my property, not society.
    , @map
    " Switzerland is an excellent example in that regard, but even Austria and Germany are a lot “freer” than most Americans seem to realize. Far from being “smug”, I am just disappointed at how ignorant Americans are about gun laws in Europe."

    Peter, gun control in America is about disarming white people, not NAMs. The gun controllers want NAMs to be heavily armed. They see NAMs as foot soldiers against the wrong kind of white people.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. Steve, I know you like to think that Liberals are not all that liberal. But it just ain’t so.

    Gun control has NO EFFECT on Black gun use — Black criminals who carry guns illegally don’t buy guns legally. They obtain them through street markets. Liberals are merely engaging in a CLASS STRUGGLE of rich, White, Upper Class people with bodyguards (Rosie O’Donnell, Steven Spielberg, Michael Bloomberg) or with doormen security apartments (most of the NYT writers) against middle and working class Whites.

    The Liberal desire is to DISARM all ordinary Whites so they cannot fight back against Black armed thugs. The idea is to have a Michael Brown (or Aaron Alexis) shoving around or shooting a (Working/Middle class) White face, forever. To paraphrase Orwell.

    [MORE]

    There has been MASSIVE LIBERAL PUSHBACK by Liberal Whites on stop and frisk. Bill de Blasio is the logical outcome of the Democratic Party’s dependence on Black votes. Black voters would rather their kids be shot than be disarmed, and want the police and ordinary Whites to simply surrender to Black thugs. It is a matter of power and reproductive success. The biggest thugs in the Black underclass have the most (illegitimate of course) thugs. Disarmed Black men equal no grand kids.

    And White Liberals, aka the Ruling Upper Class, wants to push their racial rivals into the ground with the Janissary class of Black urban underclass. The whole point is to make every place like Ferguson, with Whites who lack power to live in Malibu or at least a doormen security apartment on the Upper East Side made cringing and powerless. The advantage Upper Class males get in the reproductive stakes is thus obvious; what woman wants a kid with a middle/working class White guy who can’t defend himself.

    IF guys like Bloomberg were serious, they would have MASSIVE, near-life penalties for illegally carrying firearms. This would incarcerate about 40% of the Black underclass male population between 12-55, making most places with the Black underclass far safer and more prosperous. It would never happen, the violence IS DESIRED by the Upper Class.

    Look at how Upper Class White women like Annie Liebowitz and Maureen Dowd long for the uber-violent NYC of Taxi Driver? Black gun violence is a class marker giving upper class Whites particularly upper class White men a permanent advantage over everyone else. Hence the desire to disarm White guys who are not shooting anyone and keep say, Omar Thornton and Christopher Dorner armed.

    There are no “Red State” conservatives in Mexico, and cartels there are armed to the teeth with guns not legally available at all in the US: automatic AK-47s and RPGs for example. There is a GLOBAL gun surplus and places like Russia and China will supply the market for a profit like Bolivia and Columbia do the drug markets for cocaine.

    And lets be honest — real life murders even in densely policed NYC and DC show that the police come AFTER THE KILLINGS are over: the DC Naval Yard shootings, the killings of NYPD cops, any number of Chicago shootings or NYC shootings. Most people would rather defend themselves than be “avenged” by an eventual arrest, plea bargain, and a paltry few years served by some vibrant thug.

    Bottom line — free men own weapons. Slaves don’t. That’s the whole issue.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  65. Let me add, the Jewish response to gun ownership, violence, and the state has basically two paths.

    The Zionist path argues that the Holocaust happened because Jews were unarmed, and lacked their own state to fight back, shelter behind, and make something like the Holocaust just too expensive and difficult. They’ll cite the experience of Switzerland, with almost no tanks and planes, but dug in defenses, plenty of small arms and artillery. Hitler was all for invading Switzerland, until his generals told him it would cost about a million dead German soldiers and about a million more so seriously wounded they would be unfit to fight. The cost was just too much when fighting Stalin and the Allies.

    The Bloomberg, NYT, moralist path argues that people are basically good and that all that is really necessary is for a party of morally superior men to give lectures (and pass laws) to prevent the ugly violence of nationalism and hatred from issuing forth from those who had original sin: ordinary White guys.

    [MORE]

    This is also held by the Bill Gates, the Maureen Dowds, and is essentially a post-Christian original sin view of the world. With some (ordinary White guys) having it and others (Vibrants) not.

    Empirically, the Zionist path offers the most opportunity for success. At worst, a population can go down fighting, and never underestimate an armed populace. The Soviet-Finnish war being a good example. The Bloomberg model depends on the original sin being confined entirely upon a single group, and moral lectures and laws being sufficient. Weimar Germany had perhaps one of Europe’s most enlightened set of laws and constitutions, and was worthless against the ugly will to power by Nazi fanatics worshiping Hitler as a god.

    Depending on moral supermen is empirically a bad bet for society. Hitler systematically disarmed the civilian population, and thus when the Nazis did ugly things and made society into a nightmare, there was no meaningful way to oppose them. The flip side of non-violent, peaceful, orderly, nice place to live cultures like Germany or Japan is that when leadership is captured through random chance by deranged fanatics, there is no possibility of overthrow by a population accustomed to obeying sane and rational leaders and disarmed.

    Your ultimate preference for disarmed civilians or armed ones comes fundamentally to your views of human nature, and your views on the likelihood of insane fanatics coming to power in your society.

    I personally prefer to depend on myself for health and safety. It is my responsibility to eat right, exercise, avoid bad areas, avoid unhealthy times (say 2 am in an urban environment), and to be the first line of defense in self-defense. All the police and doctors won’t help me if I am constantly eating donuts and lazing on the couch, or unarmed when bad people invariably make their appearance.

    Good people can be shamed, persuaded, argued out of bad things; bad people simply cannot.

    I don’t think humanity is intrinsically bad, but it regularly produces some very bad people who can be only deterred by utmost violence. Having firearms is like exercising and eating right in addition to having good doctors and medical care. It is the first line of defense. But then, I figure ordinary people not just the chosen few upper class elite deserve the freedom to choose for themselves.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  66. It’s a media campaign. Cable news is comparing terrorism with bipolar disorder today. People with problems? When my chopper got shot we had to bail. I think they had stinger missiles via the coalition provisional authority. I was all in until I was out. We dug wells for poor Afghanis without shovels.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  67. @Maj. Kong
    They would fear Chechens

    Ban pressure cookers! We’re facing terrorists who are lone wolves. Chicago is rewilding and coyotes are on the make. Start city game commissions because the gaming commission and slot machines failed to produce enough losers to fund the parks, schools and libraries. Ban Big Gulps!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Ban pressure cookers! ... Chicago…
     
    If you live atop Marina City, or just halfway up the Hancock Tower, everything you own is a deadly weapon. Except maybe the pillows.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. @Harry Baldwin
    I've been listening to Steven Pinker's lectures and interviews on YouTube. Brilliant man, I enjoy hearing what he has to say. In a talk on "The Better Angels of Our Nature," he expresses his bewilderment that gun ownership is still so widespread in America. At the same time, smart man that he is, he understands that for those of us in the gun culture it's non-negotiable. It's the line in the sand. It's also the only area in which the left hasn't succeeded in its relentless assault on traditional America.

    Steven Pinker doesn't understand why anyone would want to have a gun. I--and millions like me--can't understand why anyone wouldn't want a gun. Seriously, I don't. How can a man settle down to sleep at night knowing that if he wakes up to the sound of his front door being kicked in, he's defenseless? That if someone comes in and wants to do to his family what the burglars did to the wife and daughters of Dr. Petit of Cheshire, CT, in 2007, he's not going to stop them.? How can he not want a fighting chance, come what may?

    It's clear that you, Steve, like Pinker, can't figure out the gun culture. It mystifies you, causing you to write things like "Minimum age limits for handguns, such as 25, seem not unreasonable," which are not really relevant.

    It's okay, we still hold you in great esteem.

    I don’t want a gun because I recognize that I am far likelier to shoot myself with it than shoot someone else. I live in NYC and I feel pretty safe. If I owned a gun, I would feel less safe than I do now.

    (In DC in the early 90s, on the other hand, I was terrified, and rightly so — got robbed at gunpoint twice within a few blocks of my home.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @The most deplorable one

    I don’t want a gun because I recognize that I am far likelier to shoot myself with it than shoot someone else.
     
    That's pretty lame. There are courses you can take that will give you the skills to avoid shooting yourself and you can go to a range.

    If you depend on others to protect you, what happens when they are gone?
    , @Harry Baldwin
    I don’t want a gun because I recognize that I am far likelier to shoot myself with it than shoot someone else.

    I would never suggest that everyone should own a gun. I understand that a lot of people are uncomfortable around guns and prefer to take the risks associated with not having one to the risks associated with having one. It should be their choice.

    I've taken a number of classes in shooting and self defense. One instructor I would recommend is Craig "Southnarc" Douglas. He teaches a course, "Managing Unknown Contacts," most of which is about avoiding conflict. It helps you avoid becoming a victim.

    Description here: http://www.stickgrappler.net/2012/09/self-defense-southnarc-aka-craig_718.html
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. @sabril
    "What blue-region white liberals actually want is for the government to disarm the dangerous urban minorities that threaten their children’s safety. "

    I'm skeptical of this; if liberals were actually trying to accomplish something, surely they would have noticed by now that no gun control law has ever reduced crime. Looks to me like it's just moral preening combined with the urge to stick it to NOKDs.

    Well, liberals look around the world and observe that developed countries with strict gun control and low rates of gun ownership have fewer murders than we do. They believe that gun control will reduce crime. You may think they’re crazy, but they are quite sincere in their belief.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The most deplorable one

    Well, liberals look around the world and observe that developed countries with strict gun control and low rates of gun ownership have fewer murders than we do.
     
    However, it is not true. Check this out:

    http://conservativevideos.com/america-1-gun-ownership-111-murder/

    No 1 in gun ownership but no 111 in murder rate, and if you take out places like Detroit and others with a high proportion of African Americans, we sink lower still.
    , @Crawfurdmuir
    The trouble with this view is that there's really no correlation between gun control laws and low murder rates.

    Switzerland, where every adult male is a member of the Eidgenossenschaft, and has a fully automatic weapon and ammunition in his home, doesn't have a significantly higher murder rate than Great Britain, where section 5 firearms (all breechloading handguns, some rifles and some shotguns with large magazine capacity) are essentially banned, other rifles are stringently restricted, and shotguns are substantially restricted.

    On the other hand, Mexico has highly restrictive gun control laws and is plagued with violent crime. The same is true of much of the rest of Latin America, as well as many African countries. I note that you wrote "developed countries with strict gun control..." and it may be that these places are not considered "developed." Then, perhaps, the key to reducing violence is development, rather than gun control.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. @Peter Akuleyev
    The American Revolution was hardly a battle against "tyranny". The British colonies were already the freest polities in the world, complete with local republican government, before the Revolution. It was basically a conservative revolution of landowners kicking out absentee landlords. What I see in world history is that landowners are the bulwark of freedom. The most free societies are generally those where a reasonably large percentage of the population owns land - Jefferson's "yeoman farmers". Land ownership gives you a sense of independence from the state, or your clan or whatever, that no laws or human rights declarations will ever provide. Land owners, including small farmers, should own guns. Switzerland is an excellent example in that regard, but even Austria and Germany are a lot "freer" than most Americans seem to realize. Far from being "smug", I am just disappointed at how ignorant Americans are about gun laws in Europe. For example, 32% of French citizens legally own guns, and in the countryside that percentage is much much higher. What some of us in Europe fail to understand is why Americans think it is a good idea to spread the franchise of gun ownership outside the land owning classes to people with no vested interest in defending society. The conspiracy theorist in me suspects the NRA actually wants NAMs to have more guns because I am sure tales of NAMs breaking into your house makes for great fundraising materials.

    What some of us in Europe fail to understand is why Americans think it is a good idea to spread the franchise of gun ownership outside the land owning classes to people with no vested interest in defending society

    Because bearing arms is a basic human right. I bear arms to defend my family, my self and my property, not society.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. The most deplorable one [AKA "Fourth doorman of the apocalypse"] says:
    @keypusher
    I don't want a gun because I recognize that I am far likelier to shoot myself with it than shoot someone else. I live in NYC and I feel pretty safe. If I owned a gun, I would feel less safe than I do now.

    (In DC in the early 90s, on the other hand, I was terrified, and rightly so -- got robbed at gunpoint twice within a few blocks of my home.)

    I don’t want a gun because I recognize that I am far likelier to shoot myself with it than shoot someone else.

    That’s pretty lame. There are courses you can take that will give you the skills to avoid shooting yourself and you can go to a range.

    If you depend on others to protect you, what happens when they are gone?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. “Well, liberals look around the world and observe that developed countries with strict gun control and low rates of gun ownership have fewer murders than we do. They believe that gun control will reduce crime. You may think they’re crazy, but they are quite sincere in their belief.”

    The same liberals who predicted in unison back in the 90s that as states legalized conceal carry the crime rate and murder rate would skyrocket. Those predictions have quietly been swept under the rug bc of how incredibly wrong they were. Gun ownership and the amount of people carrying guns around has exploded while murder and crime have plummeted, with the only exceptions being places like Chicago where guns have been banned for two decades.

    The same liberals love to compare the US to other white euro nations or Australia/Canada, yet don’t compare white vs white crime. Instead, they are essentially comparing the black murder rate of 14.4 or so per 100k (compared to the white American rate of 1.9 per 100k) to Europe and other places. When crime is brought up in those nations, it is often blamed on immigrants or non whites.

    Let’s drop our entire black underclass into Europe and see how civilized and low the crime rates are for them since gun laws are the answer, right?

    All of a sudden, the “because science and math” crowd suddenly have no desire to delve into basic math and science when looking at who is engaging in the crime and murder, but instead want to contrast black Americans with white Europeans to make a case for their fascist gun banning agenda.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  73. The most deplorable one [AKA "Fourth doorman of the apocalypse"] says:
    @keypusher
    Well, liberals look around the world and observe that developed countries with strict gun control and low rates of gun ownership have fewer murders than we do. They believe that gun control will reduce crime. You may think they're crazy, but they are quite sincere in their belief.

    Well, liberals look around the world and observe that developed countries with strict gun control and low rates of gun ownership have fewer murders than we do.

    However, it is not true. Check this out:

    http://conservativevideos.com/america-1-gun-ownership-111-murder/

    No 1 in gun ownership but no 111 in murder rate, and if you take out places like Detroit and others with a high proportion of African Americans, we sink lower still.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. “Minimum age limits for handguns, such as 25, seem not unreasonable.”

    That will do precisely nothing to stop the debate over guns. The lefties object to guns in the hands of civilians, period; minor concessions will not placate them.

    I agree with others that on the ground this is a social signaling debate. SWPLs can indicate the SWPLness by sneering at gun owners.

    For the Europeans, there are some places in the US where police coverage is limited to 40 hours a week, 8 AM-4PM, M-F. If a burglary goes down maybe you’ll get a call on Monday morning asking how it all turned out. Even if they’re on duty it can be a long drive out to the crime scene.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  75. Aerial bombing and drone attacks increase violence. “What this means to us today is that much of the body of psychology and psychiatry, and the body of history in this field, all affirm that a soldier, police officer, or peacekeeper on the street is infinitely more effective at influencing behavior than any quantity of impersonal bombs in the air, no matter how “smart” those bombs may be.” http://www.killology.com/art_onkilling_phobia.htm

    The rich get richer and the poor get bombed as usual.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  76. @keypusher
    Well, liberals look around the world and observe that developed countries with strict gun control and low rates of gun ownership have fewer murders than we do. They believe that gun control will reduce crime. You may think they're crazy, but they are quite sincere in their belief.

    The trouble with this view is that there’s really no correlation between gun control laws and low murder rates.

    Switzerland, where every adult male is a member of the Eidgenossenschaft, and has a fully automatic weapon and ammunition in his home, doesn’t have a significantly higher murder rate than Great Britain, where section 5 firearms (all breechloading handguns, some rifles and some shotguns with large magazine capacity) are essentially banned, other rifles are stringently restricted, and shotguns are substantially restricted.

    On the other hand, Mexico has highly restrictive gun control laws and is plagued with violent crime. The same is true of much of the rest of Latin America, as well as many African countries. I note that you wrote “developed countries with strict gun control…” and it may be that these places are not considered “developed.” Then, perhaps, the key to reducing violence is development, rather than gun control.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Maj. Kong
    A further question would be the enforcement of the laws. Mexico may have strict laws, but they are not truly enforced. Japan has perhaps the strictest laws, and they are harshly enforced. And it is then no surprise that Tokyo is the safest city in the world. Yakuza tend to only kill each other, which is why they seem to be tolerated.
    , @snorlax
    Ann Coulter got into trouble recently for pointing out that if you just look at white people, America has the same murder rate as Belgium.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. @Crawfurdmuir
    The trouble with this view is that there's really no correlation between gun control laws and low murder rates.

    Switzerland, where every adult male is a member of the Eidgenossenschaft, and has a fully automatic weapon and ammunition in his home, doesn't have a significantly higher murder rate than Great Britain, where section 5 firearms (all breechloading handguns, some rifles and some shotguns with large magazine capacity) are essentially banned, other rifles are stringently restricted, and shotguns are substantially restricted.

    On the other hand, Mexico has highly restrictive gun control laws and is plagued with violent crime. The same is true of much of the rest of Latin America, as well as many African countries. I note that you wrote "developed countries with strict gun control..." and it may be that these places are not considered "developed." Then, perhaps, the key to reducing violence is development, rather than gun control.

    A further question would be the enforcement of the laws. Mexico may have strict laws, but they are not truly enforced. Japan has perhaps the strictest laws, and they are harshly enforced. And it is then no surprise that Tokyo is the safest city in the world. Yakuza tend to only kill each other, which is why they seem to be tolerated.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    Mexico may have strict laws, but they are not truly enforced.

    They are enforced against ordinary honest citizens who might wish to be able to defend themselves. They are not enforced against the gangsters who work hand-in-hand with the police and government.
    , @Crawfurdmuir
    It is not only Japanese gun laws that are strictly enforced, but a policing regime that includes regular unannounced police inspections of all households. A point that gun-controllers never like to touch on in their propaganda is that in order for gun control laws to be as effective as their advocates claim they will be, they must be accompanied by significant incursions on civil liberties other than the right to keep and bear arms.
    , @Reg Cæsar

    Japan has perhaps the strictest laws, and they are harshly enforced. And it is then no surprise that Tokyo is the safest city in the world.
     
    And also no surprise that Kingston, Jamaica, with similar laws for the last 40 years, is the second safest city.

    Oh, wait… scratch that…
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. @Peter Akuleyev

    Let’s just go ahead and admit that “liberals,” AKA leftist extremists, don’t like the 2nd Amendment. They don’t like what it’s designed for: so the citizenry can stockpile firearms against a tyrannical gov’t. If they could put a stop to it, they would
     
    .

    If that is what the 2nd Amendment is designed for, it is totally useless. This is basically romantic Civil War revisionism disguised as a call for liberty. History shows that when citizens stockpile arms, they usually end up installing an even more tyrannical government. The Bolsheviks were installed by millions of armed ordinary Russians chasing out the elites. The Nazis encouraged wide spread gun ownership because they knew they could count on the majority to keep the minority of dissidents and Jews under control. An effective tyrannical government is never threatened by armed citizens because the rulers know how to acquire the support of local elites, decision makers and influential people, the people who will encourage the ordinary armed citizens not to rise up. Life is not like "Red Dawn".

    It is depressing to consider how few examples there are in world history of a free citizenry actually chasing out a tyrannical government and replacing it with free effective republican government.

    The Nazis encouraged wide spread gun ownership because they knew they could count on the majority to keep the minority of dissidents and Jews under control.

    Hitler relaxed rules regarding gun ownership for “his people” (as Eric Holder would put it) and banned Jews from owning firearms and other deadly weapons.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_legislation_in_Germany

    In the case of our government, it sees white conservatives as the enemy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. @JSM
    "bafflegabbery " Awesome word! Did you coin it? May I steal it?

    Yes you can steal it, but you’re stealing it from Steve Sailer. He used “bafflegab” as a verb in one of his Taki articles last year. I was in a hurry when I wrote that comment above, and “bafflegab” occurred to me for some reason, and I just added the few extra letters to make it a noun.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. @keypusher
    I don't want a gun because I recognize that I am far likelier to shoot myself with it than shoot someone else. I live in NYC and I feel pretty safe. If I owned a gun, I would feel less safe than I do now.

    (In DC in the early 90s, on the other hand, I was terrified, and rightly so -- got robbed at gunpoint twice within a few blocks of my home.)

    I don’t want a gun because I recognize that I am far likelier to shoot myself with it than shoot someone else.

    I would never suggest that everyone should own a gun. I understand that a lot of people are uncomfortable around guns and prefer to take the risks associated with not having one to the risks associated with having one. It should be their choice.

    I’ve taken a number of classes in shooting and self defense. One instructor I would recommend is Craig “Southnarc” Douglas. He teaches a course, “Managing Unknown Contacts,” most of which is about avoiding conflict. It helps you avoid becoming a victim.

    Description here: http://www.stickgrappler.net/2012/09/self-defense-southnarc-aka-craig_718.html

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. @Maj. Kong
    A further question would be the enforcement of the laws. Mexico may have strict laws, but they are not truly enforced. Japan has perhaps the strictest laws, and they are harshly enforced. And it is then no surprise that Tokyo is the safest city in the world. Yakuza tend to only kill each other, which is why they seem to be tolerated.

    Mexico may have strict laws, but they are not truly enforced.

    They are enforced against ordinary honest citizens who might wish to be able to defend themselves. They are not enforced against the gangsters who work hand-in-hand with the police and government.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Twinkie

    They are enforced against ordinary honest citizens who might wish to be able to defend themselves. They are not enforced against the gangsters who work hand-in-hand with the police and government.
     
    No kidding. If the Mexican police finds *one* loose spent casing (not even the whole bullet) in your car, geez, woe onto you.

    Meanwhile, cartels are gunning down people by the dozens all the time.
    , @Maj. Kong
    http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/139462/patricio-asfura-heim-and-ralph-h-espach/the-rise-of-mexicos-self-defense-forces

    Mexico's government is corrupt enough that it took a negotiated settlement to stop these neo-rurales.

    The prospective target for Mexico's laws isn't gang members or farmers, it's middle class people that value the rule of law. That's why Mexico has a single gun store, and you can only purchase a few guns.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. @Peter Akuleyev
    I think Steve has it backwards. The default, rational solution would seem to be gun control. It is the presence of NAMs, and the implicit threat that they present that drives American conservatives to cling to their guns. Every European country, and every Anglo-Saxon country without dangerous NAM minorities, has gun control laws. In all of these countries violent gun crime is much lower than in the US. People who live in the country side, the European equivalent of Steve's "red region white conservatives", have absolutely no problem acquiring guns if they want them. Every Austrian farmer I know has several guns, there are shooting clubs and gun ranges in Austria, we even invented the Glock. No one feels as if their rights are being infringed. The only people who are inconvenienced by gun control laws are criminals. If you were the kind of person who felt you needed to carry a handgun around Vienna to feel safe, you would be inconvenienced, but no one feels that way. People like Harry Baldwin @29 sound like raving lunatics from a European point of view. Who would want to live in a society where you really believe armed invaders are going to kick your door down at any moment? That is a failed society with no faith in its own government or policing authorities. It will be interesting to see, as more and more immigrants in Europe drive higher and higher crime, if we get greater calls for relaxing our gun laws, I suspect we will.

    People like Harry Baldwin @29 sound like raving lunatics from a European point of view.

    Then a woman* like you can go unarmed.

    I don’t know any single real man who does not like weaponry. What boy doesn’t like to play with toy guns and tanks?

    Having the right to guns is freedom. Molon Labe and all that.

    *My apologies to real women (my wife and daughters are all well-trained in the use of rifles, shotguns, handguns, and knives). In my family, all children start firearms training at age 5-6. I start with a rubber band gun, then airsoft, then BB gun, then a bolt-action 22 rifle, and so on.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. @Crawfurdmuir
    The trouble with this view is that there's really no correlation between gun control laws and low murder rates.

    Switzerland, where every adult male is a member of the Eidgenossenschaft, and has a fully automatic weapon and ammunition in his home, doesn't have a significantly higher murder rate than Great Britain, where section 5 firearms (all breechloading handguns, some rifles and some shotguns with large magazine capacity) are essentially banned, other rifles are stringently restricted, and shotguns are substantially restricted.

    On the other hand, Mexico has highly restrictive gun control laws and is plagued with violent crime. The same is true of much of the rest of Latin America, as well as many African countries. I note that you wrote "developed countries with strict gun control..." and it may be that these places are not considered "developed." Then, perhaps, the key to reducing violence is development, rather than gun control.

    Ann Coulter got into trouble recently for pointing out that if you just look at white people, America has the same murder rate as Belgium.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Boomstick
    The US White, non-Hispanic murder rate is somewhere around two per hundred thousand, probably a bit under that--separating out the hispanic portion can be difficult. Blacks account for about half the murders in the US, and the Hispanic rate is about twice that of whites.

    The overall murder rate is 4.7 per hundred thousand. Call the non-black murder rate about 2.4/100K, figure Hispanics are about 20% of the US population, and the white + asian + native american + other rate is around 2/100K.

    European countries have a murder rate that hangs around 1/100K, with the Anglo nations seeming to be a bit more violent. Oi!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. Over the decades, I lived variously in mega-cities (NYC, for example) and very rural areas in the Midwest and the South where animals outnumbered people. So I have firsthand experience with a wide variety of views on gun ownership.

    I really do not think that urban elites oppose gun ownership because of black crime or fear of rural whites and such. I believe it is purely out of ignorance and fear of the gun itself.

    For most urban elites, their only experience with firearms is television (or film). It is a death machine that spews bullets by the hundreds without reloading, that mows down people without aim. They just can’t fathom why any sane, peaceful human being would want to own such “evil” objects that mercilessly kill, kill, kill by the thousands.

    Of course, that is not the reality. Over the years, I’ve converted quite a few such people into gun ownership. At first, they are terrified of guns. Then when they hear the actual report and feel the real recoil for the first time, they are shocked (because in films, guns have little report and no recoil). And that’s with 22LR pistols (and wearing eye/ear protection). But they get used to it quickly.

    Once they are adequately instructed on safe handling of firearms, most begin to enjoy shooting quite quickly, and many become ardent defenders of their new hobby (see: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/29/us/ready-aim-fire-then-relax-in-the-lounge.html).

    So, in my view, more than anything else, it’s the familiarity, or lack thereof, that determines one’s political view on guns.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    So, in my view, more than anything else, it’s the familiarity, or lack thereof, that determines one’s political view on guns.

    I agree. There's a big difference between people who grew up around guns, hunting, and recreational shooting and those who have not. Of course, as you point out, it's possible to make converts among the latter.
    , @marty
    Support for your view comes from my experience on a BART train I once posted about here. An "Occupy" type sitting next to me noticed I was holding a can of pepper spray. He asked, "why do you need that?"
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. @Harry Baldwin
    Mexico may have strict laws, but they are not truly enforced.

    They are enforced against ordinary honest citizens who might wish to be able to defend themselves. They are not enforced against the gangsters who work hand-in-hand with the police and government.

    They are enforced against ordinary honest citizens who might wish to be able to defend themselves. They are not enforced against the gangsters who work hand-in-hand with the police and government.

    No kidding. If the Mexican police finds *one* loose spent casing (not even the whole bullet) in your car, geez, woe onto you.

    Meanwhile, cartels are gunning down people by the dozens all the time.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. @Twinkie
    Over the decades, I lived variously in mega-cities (NYC, for example) and very rural areas in the Midwest and the South where animals outnumbered people. So I have firsthand experience with a wide variety of views on gun ownership.

    I really do not think that urban elites oppose gun ownership because of black crime or fear of rural whites and such. I believe it is purely out of ignorance and fear of the gun itself.

    For most urban elites, their only experience with firearms is television (or film). It is a death machine that spews bullets by the hundreds without reloading, that mows down people without aim. They just can't fathom why any sane, peaceful human being would want to own such "evil" objects that mercilessly kill, kill, kill by the thousands.

    Of course, that is not the reality. Over the years, I've converted quite a few such people into gun ownership. At first, they are terrified of guns. Then when they hear the actual report and feel the real recoil for the first time, they are shocked (because in films, guns have little report and no recoil). And that's with 22LR pistols (and wearing eye/ear protection). But they get used to it quickly.

    Once they are adequately instructed on safe handling of firearms, most begin to enjoy shooting quite quickly, and many become ardent defenders of their new hobby (see: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/29/us/ready-aim-fire-then-relax-in-the-lounge.html).

    So, in my view, more than anything else, it's the familiarity, or lack thereof, that determines one's political view on guns.

    So, in my view, more than anything else, it’s the familiarity, or lack thereof, that determines one’s political view on guns.

    I agree. There’s a big difference between people who grew up around guns, hunting, and recreational shooting and those who have not. Of course, as you point out, it’s possible to make converts among the latter.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. @Harry Baldwin
    Mexico may have strict laws, but they are not truly enforced.

    They are enforced against ordinary honest citizens who might wish to be able to defend themselves. They are not enforced against the gangsters who work hand-in-hand with the police and government.

    http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/139462/patricio-asfura-heim-and-ralph-h-espach/the-rise-of-mexicos-self-defense-forces

    Mexico’s government is corrupt enough that it took a negotiated settlement to stop these neo-rurales.

    The prospective target for Mexico’s laws isn’t gang members or farmers, it’s middle class people that value the rule of law. That’s why Mexico has a single gun store, and you can only purchase a few guns.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. @snorlax
    Ann Coulter got into trouble recently for pointing out that if you just look at white people, America has the same murder rate as Belgium.

    The US White, non-Hispanic murder rate is somewhere around two per hundred thousand, probably a bit under that–separating out the hispanic portion can be difficult. Blacks account for about half the murders in the US, and the Hispanic rate is about twice that of whites.

    The overall murder rate is 4.7 per hundred thousand. Call the non-black murder rate about 2.4/100K, figure Hispanics are about 20% of the US population, and the white + asian + native american + other rate is around 2/100K.

    European countries have a murder rate that hangs around 1/100K, with the Anglo nations seeming to be a bit more violent. Oi!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. @grey enlightenment
    Steve, that's why people find your opinions interesting. You're always looking at an issue from a perspective that isn't obvious, or that no one else is.

    Minimum age limits for handguns, such as 25, seem not unreasonable.

    A lot of those on the right won't like that and think the minimum age should be much less.

    Stop and frisk was a success, despite the cacophony of controversy it generated.

    I’m not liberal or conservative. However I did spend the first 25 years of MY life in a 60% black city that was like Ferguson, only worse…and still is. It took me till 25 to figure out how to get my mother, three abandoned nieces and nephews, myself, and an elderly aunt out of there. White flight dontchaknow.

    From the race riots that routinely burned down our business areas to the constant ongoing race war against the tiny minority of whites who remained because we couldn’t afford to leave, life was a hell of threats, thefts, assaults (sexual and other), property damage, and murder (including one of the nephews, and the three-doors-down neighbor). I was shot at on three occasions and only the bad aim of the (black) shooters kept me from physical harm, though one time it did punch a hole in my car as I drove to work. This is how it was. The rest of America didn’t care. It was too busy celebrating “civil rights” and practicing its program of demonizing white working class urban and rural Americans.

    I needed a handgun. I lived in terror for my life, my home, my family. I was not allowed one because I couldn’t afford one after GCA68. We were as systematically disarmed as if Hitler’s SS had come through. That was the purpose of GCA68–to control black gun violence by reserving gun ownership for the rich, and the other GC laws followed. By the time I was 18 there wasn’t a place within 50 miles that one could go learn to shoot legally.

    It is unreasonable to rob responsible, careful, intelligent young adults of their Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

    It is unreasonable to create age tests for the Bill of Rights–if we can rob people under 25 of RKBA, then next we can rob people over 60, or women, or any group. And our system of law DOES NOT WORK LIKE THAT. Targeting people for loss of constitutionally protected rights on the basis of race, age, or anything IS WRONG. There may not be many black adults aged 21 to 25 who aren’t criminal (especially the males) and smart and orderly enough to use guns intelligently–but there are likely at least thousands. They should not lose the right to keep and bear arms.

    Stop and frisk was a success NOT because of racial profiling or age profiling but because of far more complex things, including perps acting like perps, and LE knowing the reputation of individuals, or the semiotics of their movement patterns through a city (where the violence/drug deals/gang wars/etc. happen, paths to and from that).

    I was absolutely law abiding as a young adult, and teen, and I still am. I never abused any of my constitutionally protected rights. Why should I, or others like me, be punished because of those who do?

    New laws for gun ownership and use will do NOTHING to rein in those who break the law. For god’s sake, why can’t people get this into their heads? I was disarmed and terrified most of my young life–with all the insomnia (listening for break ins), ulcers (from worry for my family), and other health problems it caused. I had no way of protecting those I loved and was responsible for.

    I am not Scots Irish. The tradition of firearms ownership transmitted by the Second Amendment is NOT Celtic. Read Blackstone. Look for a documentary by David T Hardy called In Search of the Second Amendment. And Mr Sailer, please stick to topics you know something about because frankly you sound rather silly on this one. Gun control doesn’t work. But our system of law does not allow us to go specifically after those we know are actually causing crimes. Further criminalizing gun ownership will do NOTHING.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. @Maj. Kong
    A further question would be the enforcement of the laws. Mexico may have strict laws, but they are not truly enforced. Japan has perhaps the strictest laws, and they are harshly enforced. And it is then no surprise that Tokyo is the safest city in the world. Yakuza tend to only kill each other, which is why they seem to be tolerated.

    It is not only Japanese gun laws that are strictly enforced, but a policing regime that includes regular unannounced police inspections of all households. A point that gun-controllers never like to touch on in their propaganda is that in order for gun control laws to be as effective as their advocates claim they will be, they must be accompanied by significant incursions on civil liberties other than the right to keep and bear arms.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. Another bombshell here, if one is paying close attention, is that Bloomberg has turned over his hand. He has just proven that he knows that young black men are the cause of violent crime in his city. This also means that he knows his running around the country blaming white rural rednecks for crime in his city was disingenuous on his part.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  92. @rustbeltreader
    Ban pressure cookers! We're facing terrorists who are lone wolves. Chicago is rewilding and coyotes are on the make. Start city game commissions because the gaming commission and slot machines failed to produce enough losers to fund the parks, schools and libraries. Ban Big Gulps!

    Ban pressure cookers! … Chicago…

    If you live atop Marina City, or just halfway up the Hancock Tower, everything you own is a deadly weapon. Except maybe the pillows.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. @Maj. Kong
    A further question would be the enforcement of the laws. Mexico may have strict laws, but they are not truly enforced. Japan has perhaps the strictest laws, and they are harshly enforced. And it is then no surprise that Tokyo is the safest city in the world. Yakuza tend to only kill each other, which is why they seem to be tolerated.

    Japan has perhaps the strictest laws, and they are harshly enforced. And it is then no surprise that Tokyo is the safest city in the world.

    And also no surprise that Kingston, Jamaica, with similar laws for the last 40 years, is the second safest city.

    Oh, wait… scratch that…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. @Twinkie
    Over the decades, I lived variously in mega-cities (NYC, for example) and very rural areas in the Midwest and the South where animals outnumbered people. So I have firsthand experience with a wide variety of views on gun ownership.

    I really do not think that urban elites oppose gun ownership because of black crime or fear of rural whites and such. I believe it is purely out of ignorance and fear of the gun itself.

    For most urban elites, their only experience with firearms is television (or film). It is a death machine that spews bullets by the hundreds without reloading, that mows down people without aim. They just can't fathom why any sane, peaceful human being would want to own such "evil" objects that mercilessly kill, kill, kill by the thousands.

    Of course, that is not the reality. Over the years, I've converted quite a few such people into gun ownership. At first, they are terrified of guns. Then when they hear the actual report and feel the real recoil for the first time, they are shocked (because in films, guns have little report and no recoil). And that's with 22LR pistols (and wearing eye/ear protection). But they get used to it quickly.

    Once they are adequately instructed on safe handling of firearms, most begin to enjoy shooting quite quickly, and many become ardent defenders of their new hobby (see: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/29/us/ready-aim-fire-then-relax-in-the-lounge.html).

    So, in my view, more than anything else, it's the familiarity, or lack thereof, that determines one's political view on guns.

    Support for your view comes from my experience on a BART train I once posted about here. An “Occupy” type sitting next to me noticed I was holding a can of pepper spray. He asked, “why do you need that?”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. I am patient, so I will keep waiting for a pro-gun control article to include a practical approach to the fact that (depending on whose numbers you choose to accept) there are 100 million to 300 million guns in private hands in America.

    Yes, many if not most gun owners own more than one, so there are fewer gun owners than guns. Who knows, maybe only 50 million? How does anyone propose to get those people to give up their guns once their guns (or in the case of this article, just their handguns) are made illegal? Why, it makes me think of an old song:

    http://tinyurl.com/mh42f5l

    I won’t even start in on how few gun control articles bother to compare the 600 annual accidental gun deaths to the numbers of other accidental deaths. This would be too rational, and I don’t want to scare anyone.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  96. New Reader,

    You reference the 1968 gun control act. Are you aware of its origins and what it was based off of after the translation was done at the library of congress?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  97. You reference the 1968 gun control act.

    The hell I do.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  98. “What blue-region white liberals actually want is for the government to disarm the dangerous urban minorities that threaten their children’s safety.”

    Not quite. The real aim of the technocrats is to disarm law abiding Whites while NAM’s carry on with their gun play as per usual. This will allow the government to effectively tyrannize Whites knowing they are less likely to stand up to a hostile, autocratic government while simultaneously being imperiled at the hands of a violent, well-armed undertow. Gun laws never make dent with those who don’t abide by them, and everybody fighting for more of them already know it. Gun laws are part of a well designed strategy of tension.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Truth

    The real aim of the technocrats is to disarm law abiding Whites while NAM’s carry on with their gun play as per usual. This will allow the government to effectively tyrannize Whites knowing they are less likely to stand up to a hostile, autocratic government while simultaneously being imperiled at the hands of a violent, well-armed undertow.
     
    And they would have gotten away with it too, if it wasn't for you meddling kids.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. The real aim of the technocrats is to disarm law abiding Whites while NAM’s carry on with their gun play as per usual. This will allow the government to effectively tyrannize Whites knowing they are less likely to stand up to a hostile, autocratic government while simultaneously being imperiled at the hands of a violent, well-armed undertow.

    I agree that this is a bigger danger, although I think it’s less a matter of an organized government takeover than it is a desire to break law-abiding people and leave them defenseless against the mob. I see zero danger of confiscation; much more worrisome is the possibility of making any use of a gun in self-defense a practical impossibility by imposing so many burdens that it would be futile to even try, no matter what.

    Therefore, I suggest that those who are “pro-RKBA” keep their closest eye on state and local rules pertaining to the acceptable use of force by individuals under threat. I think that’s where the gun controllers will be looking to advance their cause. Per my earlier comment, anyone with a three digit I.Q. knows there are too many guns to confiscate, so they’ll go after the ability to use them.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  100. @Marc
    "What blue-region white liberals actually want is for the government to disarm the dangerous urban minorities that threaten their children’s safety."

    Not quite. The real aim of the technocrats is to disarm law abiding Whites while NAM's carry on with their gun play as per usual. This will allow the government to effectively tyrannize Whites knowing they are less likely to stand up to a hostile, autocratic government while simultaneously being imperiled at the hands of a violent, well-armed undertow. Gun laws never make dent with those who don't abide by them, and everybody fighting for more of them already know it. Gun laws are part of a well designed strategy of tension.

    The real aim of the technocrats is to disarm law abiding Whites while NAM’s carry on with their gun play as per usual. This will allow the government to effectively tyrannize Whites knowing they are less likely to stand up to a hostile, autocratic government while simultaneously being imperiled at the hands of a violent, well-armed undertow.

    And they would have gotten away with it too, if it wasn’t for you meddling kids.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. Catherine has one of the best smiles in the industry, so to keep it perfect she brushes her teeth with mashed up
    strawberries.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  102. @Peter Akuleyev

    Let’s just go ahead and admit that “liberals,” AKA leftist extremists, don’t like the 2nd Amendment. They don’t like what it’s designed for: so the citizenry can stockpile firearms against a tyrannical gov’t. If they could put a stop to it, they would
     
    .

    If that is what the 2nd Amendment is designed for, it is totally useless. This is basically romantic Civil War revisionism disguised as a call for liberty. History shows that when citizens stockpile arms, they usually end up installing an even more tyrannical government. The Bolsheviks were installed by millions of armed ordinary Russians chasing out the elites. The Nazis encouraged wide spread gun ownership because they knew they could count on the majority to keep the minority of dissidents and Jews under control. An effective tyrannical government is never threatened by armed citizens because the rulers know how to acquire the support of local elites, decision makers and influential people, the people who will encourage the ordinary armed citizens not to rise up. Life is not like "Red Dawn".

    It is depressing to consider how few examples there are in world history of a free citizenry actually chasing out a tyrannical government and replacing it with free effective republican government.

    “The Bolsheviks were installed by millions of armed ordinary Russians chasing out the elites. The Nazis encouraged wide spread gun ownership because they knew they could count on the majority to keep the minority of dissidents and Jews under control.”

    Sorry, the Bolsheviks were not installed by an armed majority. It was a coup staged by a well-organized minority. Besides, your average Russian was relatively disarmed anyway, which is why the Bolsheviks were so brutal.

    The Nazis were never as tyrannical toward the German people as the Bolsheviks were toward the Russians. Germans did not have their Kulaks.

    This is all just historical revisionism. The NSDAP was created to prevent a Bolshevik movement from appearing.

    You can tell what the anti-gun movement has in store for Americans by their rabid devotion to their cause. The depth of lying and dissembling in an effort to get rid of guns is not motivated by any concern for public safety. They want to do bad things to you and they cannot do those things if you are heavily armed.

    Are your European example provides is that Europeans are simply used to being subjects of the civil authority.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. @Peter Akuleyev
    American gun fetishism is an excellent example of treating the symptoms, not the disease. For the most part Europeans don't need to fear for their lives because we don't have the violent substrata that exists in the US. Rather than liberalize gun laws, it would make more sense to just keep those sort of people out of Europe in the first place. I agree that France is an excellent example of a country going in exactly the wrong direction.

    In Austria, Germany, and Italy it is fairly easy for a white, Christian landowner to own guns. Most of the aristocracy have guns at their country houses. It is more difficult for immigrants, urban socialists, the unemployed or psychopaths to own guns. To me that seems like the way a conservative system should work.

    “In Austria, Germany, and Italy it is fairly easy for a white, Christian landowner to own guns. Most of the aristocracy have guns at their country houses. It is more difficult for immigrants, urban socialists, the unemployed or psychopaths to own guns. To me that seems like the way a conservative system should work.”

    In America, the white, Christian landowner is the psychopath, according to the Civil Authorities.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. @Peter Akuleyev
    The American Revolution was hardly a battle against "tyranny". The British colonies were already the freest polities in the world, complete with local republican government, before the Revolution. It was basically a conservative revolution of landowners kicking out absentee landlords. What I see in world history is that landowners are the bulwark of freedom. The most free societies are generally those where a reasonably large percentage of the population owns land - Jefferson's "yeoman farmers". Land ownership gives you a sense of independence from the state, or your clan or whatever, that no laws or human rights declarations will ever provide. Land owners, including small farmers, should own guns. Switzerland is an excellent example in that regard, but even Austria and Germany are a lot "freer" than most Americans seem to realize. Far from being "smug", I am just disappointed at how ignorant Americans are about gun laws in Europe. For example, 32% of French citizens legally own guns, and in the countryside that percentage is much much higher. What some of us in Europe fail to understand is why Americans think it is a good idea to spread the franchise of gun ownership outside the land owning classes to people with no vested interest in defending society. The conspiracy theorist in me suspects the NRA actually wants NAMs to have more guns because I am sure tales of NAMs breaking into your house makes for great fundraising materials.

    ” Switzerland is an excellent example in that regard, but even Austria and Germany are a lot “freer” than most Americans seem to realize. Far from being “smug”, I am just disappointed at how ignorant Americans are about gun laws in Europe.”

    Peter, gun control in America is about disarming white people, not NAMs. The gun controllers want NAMs to be heavily armed. They see NAMs as foot soldiers against the wrong kind of white people.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Peter, gun control in America is about disarming white people, not NAMs. The gun controllers want NAMs to be heavily armed. They see NAMs as foot soldiers against the wrong kind of white people.
     
    Not *just* the wrong kind of whites. Also, the wrong kind of Asians:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_J7kPNe7fI

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzkBGQx3HAc

    Listen to the SWPL alarmist talk in those video clips. Apparently they find the Korean merchants defending their property far more dangerous than the looters.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. “They would fear Chechens”

    Blacks don’t fear anybody with skin lighter than theirs.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  106. @map
    " Switzerland is an excellent example in that regard, but even Austria and Germany are a lot “freer” than most Americans seem to realize. Far from being “smug”, I am just disappointed at how ignorant Americans are about gun laws in Europe."

    Peter, gun control in America is about disarming white people, not NAMs. The gun controllers want NAMs to be heavily armed. They see NAMs as foot soldiers against the wrong kind of white people.

    Peter, gun control in America is about disarming white people, not NAMs. The gun controllers want NAMs to be heavily armed. They see NAMs as foot soldiers against the wrong kind of white people.

    Not *just* the wrong kind of whites. Also, the wrong kind of Asians:

    Listen to the SWPL alarmist talk in those video clips. Apparently they find the Korean merchants defending their property far more dangerous than the looters.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. […] Giuliani and Michael Bloomberg showed how that was done.  Don’t expect that to come to St. Louis, though.  In fact, […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  108. […] Remember what happened the last time someone important said something curious to the Aspen Institute… […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored