Chicago shootings are up 200% from last year.
There are dozens of articles on the police shooting video from 2013 but the MSM seems uninterested in reporting on the fact that the city is exploding in violence.
Democrats are still talking about the “gun show loophole” and background checks when a University of Chicago study found that criminals get their guns from friends and family. House Democrats are trying to ban assault rifles even though it is extremely rare for them to be used in homicides when compared to handguns.
When it comes to proposing laws there is clearly a misdirection of focus on the part of Democrats. If they are serious about reducing gun violence then they need to look at where it mostly occurring and how those guns are being acquired.
What we are seeing is the acceptance of anarchy by both political parties and the mainstream media. Democrats especially should be ashamed since they have had total control of this city for decades and yet they are spending legislative time on gun shows that are mostly patronized by rural Whites and rifles rarely used in crimes. Their refusal to face the reality of a warzone in their own jurisdiction is appalling. Sadly the only circumstance that will likely capture the attention of politicians is an exponential increase in violence to where local government services are unable to function.
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.
It’s become popular for both liberal and libertarian journalists to blame the war on drugs for not just drug related problems but also the daily shootings in cities like Chicago and Baltimore.
The basic reasoning behind this position is that strict laws do not discourage drug use and in fact create a black market that invites gangs which then leads to gang warfare.
It sounds reasonable enough until you ask them this basic question:
If strict drug laws cause more problems then they solve, then shouldn’t the countries with the strictest drug laws have the most problems?
They will gleefully respond YES under the assumption that the US has some of the strictest laws and the most problems. What they don’t know is that Singapore has some of the strictest laws in the world along with extremely low drug use rates.
Instead of giving up and legalizing destructive drugs like heroin, pcp and methamphetamine we should actually look at countries that have much lower drug use rates to see what they are doing differently. For Singapore their success has been from stricter laws and not simply giving up and allowing these destructive drugs to be legalized.
One final question: Will liberals and libertarians be volunteering to help out with the inevitable increase in PCP and bath salt attacks that would occur from making these drugs widely available? Are they going to volunteer as Sheriff’s deputies or will they just sit in their homes and let the chaos unfold? I’d bet on the latter.
Tim Swarens, a journalist at the Indy star recently defended the Amanada Blackburn murderers as a creation of our society. He writes:
The fact is these young men are products of our community. They grew in our midst from the innocent children we all are at birth to become the dangerous predators they appear to be today. They attended our schools, lived in our neighborhoods, mingled with the rest of us on our streets.
This is classic blank slate thinking that is popular with liberal journalists, authors, educators, politicians and television writers. The basic idea is that people are born as innocent blank slates that are only turned evil by society. This obviously appeals to liberal egalitarians as it means everyone has equal potential with the right environment (read government programs) but despite its widespread popularity this idea is simply not supported by Psychologists. Not only does blank slate go against common sense (can children of the same family not differ in behavioral attributes?) but twin studies have shown how important genetics are in social outcomes. Furthermore the concept of the psychopath is widely accepted by Psychologists which means that the traditional wisdom of there being “bad apples” is in fact correct. Studies that show a genetic component to psychopathy further undermine the liberal idea that all children are born innocent and it’s society that makes them evil.
Ironically the social sciences are notoriously liberal but liberal journalists like Tim Swarens seem to be unaware their belief in blank slate contradicts modern Psychology. It would behoove them to spend some time reading about twin studies to understand the limits of environmental conditioning. Some people are simply born bad and need to be locked away from general society. That may not appeal to liberal egalitarian idealism but nature exists as it is and not as a liberal construct.
The mainstream media continues to refer to homicide in Baltimore as gun violence with the implication being that the guns are the underlying problem.
If gun access was truly the problem then shouldn’t gun homicides always outnumber non-gun homicides in cities where population size is the same? Interestingly if you compare the cities of Baltimore, Maryland and Portland, Oregon this is not the case.
Extracting from The Baltimore Sun homicide map we get:
2 murders by asphyxiation
12 by blunt force
32 by stabbing
2 counted as other
= 48 non-gun homicides
During the same period Portland recorded 26 homicides. That’s nearly 50% fewer.
The reflexive position of the mainstream media to refer to Baltimore’s problems as gun violence is disingenuous and shows a refusal to take a deeper look at the prevalence of crime in the area. Even if the guns did not exist the murder rates of these two cities would be wildly different. Furthermore if the guns did not exist it is likely that non-gun homicides would simply increase. The mainstream media needs to drop their dishonest campaign against guns and face the reality of the situation.
The mainstream media is constantly calling for more gun control in cities like Baltimore but this map shows that the problem is not simply the availability of guns.
What you are looking at is one week of criminal activity in Baltimore.
Take away the guns and you still have a city overwhelmed with crime. The idea that Baltimore would be peaceful if not for gun availability is woefully naive.