Baltimore murders have increased 50% year over year to a new per capita high.
Milwaukee had a 67% increase in homicides which puts it at a level not seen since the 90s.
Washington DC had a 54% increase.
St. Louis had a 50% increase which made it the murder capital of the country.
Liberals in the past have tried to excuse higher than average homicide rates in Black cities with various defenses. Let’s look at how they stack up with this recent data:
- Poverty. The catch-all excuse with a poor foundation (can poor people not be moral?) is even more troubling here. None of these cities have had any significant economic changes. The black unemployment rate is actually the lowest since 2007.
- Lead poisoning. This excuse has been used for decades and is often cited for the increase in violent crime that occurred in the 90s. Obviously this is a poor excuse for a year over year increase especially given that lead was phased out decades ago. Lead poisoning is valid environmental concern but this excuse had problems from the beginning which I will cover in an upcoming post.
- Availability of guns. Many liberals seem to believe that gun related violence is simply a math equation. But are we supposed to believe that St. Louis had a 50% increase in the gun supply? What about the moral culpability of the shooters? Do liberals believe it exists? The supply theory also doesn’t make sense given that there are states like Alaska that have high gun ownership and yet have low murder rates.
- Legacy of slavery. Another catch-all excuse that fails in the current context. Did the legacy increase year over year?
Liberal excuses for violent crime were never that credible in the first place but these recent increases show that liberal explanations are clearly missing some variables. It’s probably time they face the dreaded C word (rhymes with vulture) and consider if some of their government polices from the “Great Society” plans (when is that happening?) have helped or hindered the C word.
The Washington Post recently ran an article entitled How to reduce gun violence even though it didn’t actually contain a solution and just suggested allowing Federal research.
There is actually a simple solution that can easily reduce gun violence in the US.
Since even the liberal Washington Times now acknowledges that gun homicides are overwhelmingly in Black communities it makes sense to target these areas and not pretend that it is a national problem.
The simple solution is to impose curfews in areas like Chicago and Baltimore. Chicago is more dangerous than Iraq so we need to stop pretending that it is a normal city. Looking at a scatter chart of shootings for the last 30 days shows the shocking violence of this city.
It’s a myth that these shootings are all gang related. In fact as I pointed out before in White Chicagoans less violent than French non-Gang shootings by Blacks in Chicago still drastically out number other groups.
Imposing a curfew of 10:00 PM on weekdays for cities like Chicago would achieve the following:
- Fewer conflicts by simply reducing street level interactions
- Reduced alcohol related shootings
- Allow the community to have a quiet period where children will not constantly wake to gunshots
Anyone breaking the curfew without a work permit would be subject to searching which would take more guns off the street.
This would also reduce costs for the city as fewer police would be needed during midnight hours.
A curfew is a cost effective solution that does not compromise the rights of gun owners and is intellectually honest in that it targets gun related violence where it is mainly occurring.
If more car accidents occurred on a single stretch of a highway than an entire state would it be logical to blame the legalization of cars? Would it make sense to propose banning certain cars that are rarely found on any highway? How would this be a logical political response?
Democrats in Congress might want to look at the racial divergence of gun homicide statistics in America instead of proposing national bans against certain types of rifles . Such a proposal is deceptive and dishonest as it ignores the racial component of gun related homicides.
Extracting from these Chicago shooting statistics reveals that Englewood, a 3 square mile neighborhood in Chicago with a population of 20,000 had 49 homicides. Alaska has a population of around 750k and yet they had 41 homicides in 2014.
Interestingly Alaska has the highest rate of gun ownership where more than 60% of households own a gun. The theory that the guns themselves cause a higher homicide rate is obviously a myth. If the guns were truly the problem then Alaska should be a warzone.
Democrats that want to reduce gun related homicides need to look at where they are occurring and stop depicting the problem as national. The overwhelming amount of gun related homicides occur in heavily Black cities like Chicago where Democrats have had a political monopoly for decades. The vast majority of these homicides involved a handgun and only rarely is a rifle of any type used. Drafting legislation that ignores the racial component of gun related homicides is intellectually dishonest and undermines efforts to find solutions that actually reduce the problem.
Consider these facts about recent Muslim extremist attacks in Western countries:
- The Boston Terrorist bombing was committed by the children of Muslim refugees and most of the victims were injured in the bombing and not by guns.
- The Paris Terrorists in the last two attacks used guns in a country where private gun ownership is completely illegal. In both cases refugees or children of refugees were involved.
- The San Bernardino attack involved a Muslim immigrant that was vetted by the same process that the liberal media has claimed would ensure that Syrian refugees are not terrorists.
Liberal Media Conclusion: We to bring in more Muslim refugees and restrict gun ownership.
How is this not a completely illogical conclusion?
Mainstream Democrats need to separate themselves from what has become a very dangerous anti-Western and anti-rational ideology. Liberalism has split from reality and has entrenched itself in deluded fantasy where all conflicts and problems can be placed on its traditional opponents (Western society, White people, guns, capitalism, etc). Liberalism is simply incapable of dealing with the current reality from a rational basis. The liberal refusal to face the statistical reality of Muslims refugees being an unneeded risk reveals a core anti-rational foundation. At the core liberalism is against basic reasoning in the best interest of Western society and especially if it conflicts with liberal egalitarian ideals such as open borders.
Liberals are also woefully ignorant as they have been indoctrinated into a deluded globalist egalitarian ideology that can only be maintained by information control. Liberal ideology dissolves when harsh aspects of reality that contradict core assumptions are exposed. In fact liberalism is so illogically disjointed that its own ideals conflict with each other as they depend on being ignorant of such realities.
I can ask liberals a simple question to reveal this ignorance and the contradictory nature of liberalism:
Should we allow in refugees that do not think they should have to follow our humane slaughter laws and instead want their own slaughter houses that are crueler than even Western 16th century standards?
Liberals will answer this question with a resounding NO as they place the humane treatment of animals as a higher ideal than open borders.
I then follow up with this question:
So we shouldn’t allow in Muslim refugees then?
Liberals will be confused because they have been kept in the dark on this aspect of Islam. Exposing this reality shows how their liberal position of allowing in Muslim refugees as Islam contradicts their belief in the humane slaughter of animals (read about Halal slaughter if you were unaware of this reality). Most liberals have been indoctrinated into believing that their outlook is logical and based on education when it the opposite is in fact true. Liberalism is not only emotional and anti-rational but depends on ignorance. Its contradictory foundation can be exposed simply through the revelation of suppressed information.
Ironically though liberals dominate the education and numerous University departments the greatest threat to liberalism is in fact education and analysis outside of liberal control. Liberals at the highest level have done a master job of convincing the populace that they are for education but this is one of the greatest lies in our society. Liberalism itself relies upon ignorance and only because of the internet is this lie being revealed.
Self-described Democratic Socialist took a tour of West Baltimore and likened it to the third world.
But what does that mean? That the Democrats who have dominated politics in Baltimore for decades are incompetent? Or does he think that Democrats in office there are incapable of changing anything? Which one is it Bernie?
Perhaps the Democrats of Baltimore should run on the message of: Registered Democrat Bernie Sanders doesn’t believe we can’t change anything, but vote for us anyways.
I’m not convinced that Republicans have all the answers for a Black city like Baltimore but they do at least have a valid point of Democrats failing to show any credibility. The murder per capita rate in Baltimore recently hit a record high despite the improving economy which deflates the tired liberal excuse of even violent crimes like murder being purely a matter of economics. This excuse never made sense in the first place when there have always been third world countries with more poverty and lower murder rates than Baltimore. Interestingly Baltimore’s murder rate is higher than that of the average West African country.
The simple truth is that Democrats have zero credibility when it comes to cities with large Black populations. That doesn’t mean that Republicans are correct in all of their assumptions but it does mean that these cities need something other than the status quo. Maybe it is time that Black Americans created their own political parties instead of simply handing local governments to Democrats with every election. When even a Democrat describes the results as being similar to the third world it’s time for a change.