The mainstream media lobbies hard for gun control, but it is very, very bad at gun journalism:
It might be impossible ever to bridge the divide between the gun-control and gun-rights movements. But it’s impossible to start a dialogue when you don’t know what the hell you are talking about.
Media stories in the wake of mass shootings typically feature a laundry list of mistakes that reflect their writers’ inexperience with guns and gun culture. Some of them are small but telling: conflating automatic and semi-automatic weapons, assault rifle and assault weapon, caliber and gauge—all demonstrating a general lack of familiarity with firearms. Some of them are bigger. Like calling for “common-sense gun control” and “universal background checks” after instances in which a shooter purchased a gun legally and passed background checks. Or focusing on mass shootings involving assault weapons—and thereby ignoring statistics that show that far more people die from handguns.
Honest reporting on gun crime would have to highlight that it is black crime, and that the solution is very heavy policing of black neighborhoods.
In fact, almost all gun crime is committed by a few million young black men, maybe as few as one million. That is a solvable problem. All you need is the will to put a million or so more young black men into concentration camps.
Violence is also testosterone related, and testosterone decreases with age. The blacks could be let out of the camps once they reached 50 or so.
Better yet, deport them back to Africa.
Sykes, unfortunately, while the gun violence problem is young black men, you seem — as well as the author seems — not to understand that the left sees young blacks (and Hispanics) and gun control as an answer to the same problem: white men. While it would be nice to lock up all the black men, we already lock the worst ones up. The only lasting solution to their genetic inability to function autonomously at white standards is Jim Crow or Apartheid, neither of which really worked well, because racial solidarity turns it into a revolution dynamic, so repatriating blacks to Africa is the only real solution. And that’s a tall order. You pretty much need a civil war first to kill all the god whites and still emerge as the world superpower.
Izzi, what makes you think the media want to understand the gun problem, let alone explain it to the people they have been carefully brainwashing all this time? You think they don’t actually understand the gun problem is a n—-r problem and the n—–s are never legally in possession of the guns they use and so their proposed laws are absolutely useless? You think the press doesn’t realize that private gun owners are actually safer with guns than police, even when using a gun to stop a crime? You think the media doesn’t get that besides n—-r protection, the main reason people own guns is exactly what the constitution says, to prevent a leftist government from becoming totalitarian? Of course they do, and it’s why they are trying to take guns away from whites.
But to be fair, the MSM is just as bad at any other topic, and why let details spoil a good witch hunt?
Yes, right, put people in concentration camps; that is a totally doable and politically viable option that in no way would create any sort of backlash or create any problems of its own.
Considering ‘the will’ means having the clout to get governmental people to do what you want while convincing voters that it’s in their best interests, I don’t think a Triumph des Willens is going to happen.
If it doesn’t happen formally, it will eventually happen informally, and with a lot more attendant ugliness.
Right now, the black community is violent. The question is, is that a permanent state of affairs, or the result of something else?
Go back a few hundred years, and examine the rate of inter-personal violence in the UK, the Colonies, and elsewhere. Statistically, there ain’t much difference between the “white community” back then, and the “black community” now. What led to the change?
Now, here’s another interesting datum to examine in regards to this question: The area between Scotland and England where we have all the historical records of truly incredible quantities of unlawfulness and outright rebellion. Before the 13th Century, that region was not particularly noted for problems. But, from the 13th Century on to the 17th, the Borders were a byword for lawlessness and “troubles”. After that period? General reversion to the lack of notable problems. What caused that sea-change, from peace and relative prosperity to a population of outlaws and thieves? And, then back again?
The rates of violence during the period that I’m talking about were exponentially greater than before or after. Causes could be guessed at, but the thing I find striking is that there’s been little real shift in the genetics of the region. These are the same damn people, fundamentally, who were there during the “troubles”. Why are today’s border-dwellers so different? If it were truly characteristic, down to the genes, why did that period of violence happen?
I suspect that what you might find would be that there is a genetic basis for a bunch of behavior, and that some of it stems from particular gene sequences getting methylated, and then perpetuating themselves due to the endemic violence stemming from that methylation.
Research into this might prove valuable, in assessing the proper solution to current black violence in America. Perhaps it will damp out, in a few generations… Or, not. I’d be willing to bet that the root causes of the problems are probably linked to the social/economic changes rooted in LBJ’s “Great Society” bullshit, particularly in regards to paying single mothers for having babies out of wedlock. You pay for something, you get more of it…
That one woman journalist from England came to the states to observe the “gun culture” up close and personal. She went to a gun range and fired a handgun once. Then began to cry she was so distraught at what she had done.
On the Borders, I’d offer a couple of suggestions:
1. Prior to the 13th century, both England and especially Scotland were still going through their own periods of violent state consolidation. This meant that border violence stood out less from general conditions, especially in Scotland. In Scotland, there was plenty of highland, island, and western violence as well in the period before the 13c. England less so, but there was the Conquest and the harrowing of the North in the 11th century, the Anarchy of the 12th century. There was a long period of relative peace under Henry II, but also a few rebellions. Then the reigns of Richard, John and Henry III. Tame and sporadic by Scottish standards of disorder, but bigger in absolute terms.
Not that there wasn’t still war in both countries 13-17c, but perhaps less frequent or more discrete in time in each case. The Border would have stood out more.
2. The state consolidation of England and Scotland, and the independence of the latter, only fully gelled in the 14th century. Thus creating the Borders as a ‘debatable land’, poorly policed and with general endorsement from each kingdom for their own borderer families to prey on their rivals from the other. Not all the time, and with occasional bouts of state cooperation to police the area. But mostly government-endorsed pillage.
Combined with the creation of a martial culture and an economy based on settled life being dangerous, as a result of the major Anglo-Scottish wars of the 14c with outbreaks later on, and you have a way of life.
Compare Pakistan’s NW Frontier, the debatable land of many empires and kingdoms for centuries.
Of note, once England and Scotland were united under James VI and I, the border reiver way of life died out in very short order.