Guardian Article re Localization of Gun Violence

[TheReal_ND]

Remember during the recent election, when the white, including BTW the black, working class were soft on Queen Hilary?

Lol no... what?

What with blacks have always been the last hired, and first fired,

False. When it comes down to laying off people of equal worth the white will get cut first because it is assumed, as you are doing here, they have a tough time getting hired

with the best jobs going to whites first,

Probably because whites are disproportionately more qualified.

I'm so fucking sick of this narrative where we have to bend over backwards to accommodate black Americans. I've heard it all my life and undoubtedly everyone else has as well. Is anyone else absolutely fed up with it? These people are the ones committing gun violence by and large and then you have other people demanding everyone give up their guns to accommodate them. Fuck that. Don't even get me started on who is most likely going to be on the receiving end of a self defense firearm discharge. When will the conversation start revolving around what the actual problem is and not this pixie dust bull shit?

[jbird4049]

The good folk across the pond at The Guardian considered a few demographics in their inanity, but they seem to have missed something glaringly obvious.
Want to fix gun violence in America? Go local... and vote Republican, if maps mean anything.

.

Notice that the population density is fairly congruent and with the deaths? More life allows for more deaths. The Democratic Party is stronger in the cities, and the Republican Party is stronger in the country. I admit that I haven't read the article yet , but if the Guardian is using total, and not per capita, numbers they goofed.

[skankhunt42]

I reckon if we want this nation to avoid greater conflict from within, we need to figure something out. Can it be fixed? What can we do help?

Jobs??

To me ultimate answer is providing early childhood programs. You got 4 years to tame a human, if they ain't got right and wrong figured by then, the odds fall off a cliff.

Not to be Orwellian, but we should really start to focus on who exactly is having children. It will never happen, but until we do that this problem will go on forever. Not everyone should be allowed to breed. If you come from a cycle of shit, you should have to prove somehow that you're not going to continue that cycle to have a kid.

[Smitty-48]

Not to be Orwellian, but we should really start to focus on who exactly is having children. It will never happen, but until we do that this problem will go on forever. Not everyone should be allowed to breed. If you come from a cycle of shit, you should have to prove somehow that you're not going to continue that cycle to have a kid.

That's not what Orwellian means, Orwellian means a deceptive manipulative paradoxical use of language, whereas you're just coming straight out and invoking a fascistic eugenics paradigm without being Orwellian at all.

Orwellian; the Ministry that lies is called the Ministry of Truth, calling it the Ministry of Lies, is not Orwellian.

[jbird4049]

Remember during the recent election, when the white, including BTW the black, working class were soft on Queen Hilary?

Lol no... what?
I don't want to be an ass, I just read too many liberal blogs, news sources, and my family calling the working class synonyms for morons for not supporting/voting for her.

What with blacks have always been the last hired, and first fired,

False. When it comes down to laying off people of equal worth the white will get cut first because it is assumed, as you are doing here, they have a tough time getting hired.If you cannot get hired you cannot get fired. If there is a company(s) firing people merely because of race, that would suck, especially for the person fired.

with the best jobs going to whites first,

Probably because whites are disproportionately more qualified. I think that's nonsense. In my personal experience, my fellow employees/managers who are black are a cut above my fellow whites. They have to be to be considered just as good.

I'm so fucking sick of this narrative where we have to bend over backwards to accommodate black Americans.It's reasonable to argue over details like too much, too little, good, bad, etc. but how are we bending over backwards? That sounds like crazy talk to me. But hey, give me arguments, some books, some links. :-)I don't think they'll change, but I'm game for some moderation of my views. I've heard it all my life and undoubtedly everyone else has as well. Is anyone else absolutely fed up with it? These people are the ones committing gun violence by and large and then you have other people demanding everyone give up their guns to accommodate them. Americans of all kinds have greater levels of gun violence than all other Western nations, but it is true that poor blacks gun deaths are higher than other Americans. Blacks don't wake up thinking of killing people more often than anyone else. They do suffer from a greater level of fear/anger/depression. Not only are there criminal gangs, there is the Hatfield/McCoy problem. Plus the belief that have to protect themselves. There are programs that could, and have, very successfully reduced violence. But they're usually the first thing cut.Fuck that. Don't even get me started on who is most likely going to be on the receiving end of a self defense firearm discharge. When will the conversation start revolving around what the actual problem is and not this pixie dust bull shit?

[jbird4049]

Not to be Orwellian, but we should really start to focus on who exactly is having children. It will never happen, but until we do that this problem will go on forever. Not everyone should be allowed to breed. If you come from a cycle of shit, you should have to prove somehow that you're not going to continue that cycle to have a kid.

That's not what Orwellian means, Orwellian means a deceptive manipulative paradoxical use of language, whereas you're just coming straight out and invoking a fascistic eugenics paradigm without being Orwellian at all.

Orwellian; the Ministry that lies is called the Ministry of Truth, calling it the Ministry of Lies, is not Orwellian.

I think Smitty is a little harsh. He's right about the definitions though. It might be hard to understand why he's so harsh, but it is far to easy to slid from Social Darwinism to your position to forced sterilization to selectively killings to full on genocide.

Where you are starting from ended in the Holocust in about 50-60 years. I think Wikipedia still has a good article on eugenics, and if you want I can recommend a couple of books.

[Smitty-48]

I'm not being harsh, Orwellian has simply become a term which is grossly misapplied in popular culture today, people now often invoke Orwellian to refer to any sort of dystopian and/or authoritarian tropes, but that is not what Orwellian refers to.

Oh, you mean "fascistic eugenics paradigm"? That's not being harsh, merely stating a fact, blatantly fascistic eugenics paradigm, dictionary definition of.

If skankhunt doesn't have the courage of that conviction, that's not my problem, if he is want to contest that description, he's welcome to, but that was not even subtle, if somebody shoots their mouth off like that, they should have the courage of their convictions to own it, not have a beef with me for calling a spade a spade.

[Fife]

http://orwell.ru/library/novels/1984/english/en_app

[jbird4049]

I'm not being harsh, Orwellian has simply become a term which is grossly misapplied in popular culture today, people now often invoke Orwellian to refer to any sort of dystopian and/or authoritarian tropes, but that is not what Orwellian refers to.

Oh, you mean "fascistic eugenics paradigm"? That's not being harsh, merely stating a fact, blatantly fascistic eugenics paradigm, dictionary definition of.

If skankhunt doesn't have the courage of that conviction, that's not my problem, if he is want to contest that description, he's welcome to, but that was not even subtle, if somebody shoots their mouth off like that, they should have the courage of their convictions to own it, not have a beef with me for calling a spade a spade.

I agree on the definition of Orwellian, and on fascistic eugenics paradigm, and for all I know he won't define what he says.

I'm just acting on the possibility that he has no idea of the history that would explain the problem. It seems too many people don't. God knows Americans are just wonderful at being historically ignorant, and if they were more informed they might change their beliefs. At least I hope so.

[Smitty-48]

I agree on the definition of Orwellian, and on fascistic eugenics paradigm, and for all I know he won't define what he says.

I'm just acting on the possibility that he has no idea of the history that would explain the problem. It seems too many people don't. God knows Americans are just wonderful at being historically ignorant, and if they were more informed they might change their beliefs. At least I hope so.

The fascistic paradigm is revanchist; when you feel that you've been "stabbed in the back by the November Criminals", said November Criminals supposed reasoning for having ostensibly stabbed in you in the back, is no longer of any consenquence.

Now of course, is wasn't actually the November Criminals who stabbed the German Army in the back, it was Luttendorf who went for an all or nothing gambit which simply failed and then left them wholly exposed to a counteroffensive which put the Reich at the allies mercy, but after the Treaty of Versailles has been imposed, nobody fucking cares anymore, at that point, they need some November Criminals to blame, regardless of the historical facts.