While we are waiting

[db_zero]

Unfortunately I have to concur. I always tell people that if you spend $500 on a handgun you should be prepared to spend at least twice as much on training and 4-5 times on ammo just to get up to speed and take refresher training yearly and shoot on a regular basis just to maintain minimal proficiency.

Depending on what you own and use you should really be prepared to be trained on the use of handguns, shoguns and long rifles and if you carry a handgun and long gun, 2 gun training is useful. Once you get proficient learning basics of use of firearms in a CQB/hostage situation is very useful.

Its amazing how many will fail at simple tasks when put in a fire and movement drill. You can tell and demonstrate to someone over and over how to clear a double feed, but once they start moving and firing and encounter a failure its interesting to see them do what they've seen over and over in movies and TV and fail.

Unless you take what you learned and practice over and over at home with snap caps in your spare time until it becomes as normal as riding a bike and is natural, you will find yourself making the same mistake over and over.

I still find myself learning and kicking myself for making "dumb errors", but at least now I can quickly identify and rectify them in seconds on the firing line with live ammo. That only comes with time, practice and persistence.

Every new gun I get I make sure to retake the same training courses I took with other guns. I find that's the only way to really get to know and get on a path to mastering a weapon system.

I was introduced to gun by my father before I could drive. Once I took training at a much older age it opened a whole new world. I took my niece and nephew who never fired a real gun to a training class. They loved it and in their word "made 2 converts". Its their choice about whether they own guns or not, but at least I showed them the responsible path to gun ownership.

Training is essential to gun ownership and defense. The biggest problem i have with people carrying is that they are virtually untrained and can possibly harm themselves or other innocents. Then there are the people who have tons of firearms and never bother to actually train with their weapons, aside from popping a few downrange ever once in a while. They would be better off just taking a handgun class or two.

[sburke]

JonS - since you and others apparently have no idea what the term even means, and can only see it as a bit of aimless boasting and through a lense of reflexive anti-Americanism, I will explain what the term means.

Citizens of the British empire and dominions may have a tradition of liberty and lots of other things in common with America, but they do not have a tradition of revolt against government, or government founded from the bottom up by popular will and choice, not from the top down by the granting of privileges to subjects. Britain certainly is the source of the liberties granted to subjects even in America - but not of the decisive break from the idea that government gives things to its citizens, to the idea that the citizens allow their government to do certain things and those only.

American exceptionalism refers to a background free individualism that creates governments as its instruments, when and where and as it pleases. It is the view that governments are human products that serve the people and can be thrown away if they fail to meet the prior, human ends of individuals. It is insurrection incarnate to all theories of state power or supremacy.

And whether you like it or not, that idea completely changed the world. It turned human beings loose on a sparsely populated continent with more freedom to do whatever they heck they felt like than anything seen before in human history. And in 2 centuries, it turned 3 million poor farmers in a colonial backwater into the greatest power in world history, on the back of a gusher of achievement in economic vitality, invention, practical building, voluntary cooperation taking ever deeper forms. Of course it all benefited from its prior endowment of British ideas of liberty, and from the ongoing industrial revolution - but if took those to places imperial Britain most definitely did not go, to say nothing of industrial Germany.

Anyone who thinks that idea is common in history simply doesn't know history. And anyone who thinks the effects of that idea were not a social earthquake on a scale only matched by the invention of writing or agriculture, also doesn't know history.

No class society exists on earth today. Every society on earth was a class society before America. Economic freedom was a privilege of a few English gentlemen in 1780 - now it is the birthright of about 90% of the human race. Tyranny and force were the normal forms of government and basis of such government almost everywhere on earth, before America. Now they are holdouts in backwaters and the tyrants live every day like those condemned to death by all mankind for their injustice. Why? America's existence challenges them to the bottom, American power concretely wrecked half of them, and they cannot compete with the dynamism of American economic activity, technology, or culture.

Most of the justice and freedom on earth came out of that change, and plenty of people all over the world still have no idea how we did it. I just told you, above, and it is truly not complicated. We didn't ask anyone's permission to be free. We just flat out took it and dare anybody to stop us.

That is what American exceptionalism means. And you are welcome.

Dude you are so far out there it is kind of scary. Manifest Destiny was a BS excuse for theft in the 19th century and is no more legit when you express it now. So basically your whole underpinning to being anti gun control is "We are the biggest bad asses and we can do what we want cause we have the guns/power. We stole this continent at the point of a gun, we then went on to put the world under our thumb and somehow distributed democracy". Tell that bit of BS in the Philippines. Earlier you mentioned how many people we saved from concentration camps-that wouldn't include the folks that we put in them I assume.

from Wikipedia

Concentration camps

Filipino villagers were forced into concentration camps called reconcentrados which were surrounded by free-fire zones, or in other words “dead zones.” Furthermore, these camps were overcrowded and filled with disease, causing the death rate to be extremely high. Conditions in these “reconcentrados” are generally acknowledged to have been inhumane. Between January and April 1902, 8,350 prisoners of approximately 298,000 died. Some camps incurred death rates as high as 20 percent. "One camp was two miles by one mile (3.2 by 1.6 km) in area and 'home' to some 8,000 Filipinos. Men were rounded up for questioning, tortured, and summarily executed."[96]

In Batangas Province, where General Franklin Bell was responsible for setting up a concentration camp, a correspondent described the operation as “relentless.” General Bell ordered that by December 25, 1901, the entire population of both Batangas Province and Laguna Province had to gather into small areas within the “poblacion” of their respective towns. Barrio families had to bring everything they could carry because anything left behind—including houses, gardens, carts, poultry and animals—was to be burned by the U.S. Army. Anyone found outside the concentration camps was shot. General Bell insisted that he had built these camps to "protect friendly natives from the insurgents, assure them an adequate food supply" while teaching them "proper sanitary standards." The commandant of one of the camps referred to them as the "suburbs of Hell."

Stick to being a grog, your rose tinted glasses distort your view too much to be objective about America. The reality is guns add nothing to American democracy. Never did. Whether it be the Pinkertons or MacArthur in DC, guns have only ever helped the status quo and if you get out of line and have a gun, they just shoot your a**. Your average citizen with a gun is not going to overthrow anyone no matter how much it strokes their ego.

One of the best examples of democracy in the US was the civil rights movement and it's success was primarily due to the non violent portion of that movement.

I particularly liked this part.

It turned human beings loose on a sparsely populated continent with more freedom to do whatever they heck they felt like than anything seen before in human history. And in 2 centuries, it turned 3 million poor farmers in a colonial backwater into the greatest power in world history, on the back of a gusher of achievement in economic vitality, invention, practical building, voluntary cooperation taking ever deeper forms.

Let's just ignore it also included genocide and institutionalized slavery on a scale that even made Britain blush. Yep them poor farmers through plain old hard work just made us great. If everybody would just do what we did....

PS you may want to take some history courses. American Democracy didn't develop in a vacuum or spontaneously. Hint- google Magna Carta

Again returning to Wikipedia- really this stuff isn't hard to find!

Three clauses currently remain part of the law of England and Wales, however, and it is generally considered part of the uncodified constitution. Lord Denning described it as "the greatest constitutional document of all times – the foundation of the freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of the despot".[3] In a 2005 speech, Lord Woolf described it as the "first of a series of instruments that now are recognised as having a special constitutional status",[4] the others being the Habeas Corpus Act (1679), the Petition of Right (1628), the Bill of Rights (1689), and the Act of Settlement (1701).

Perception in America The document is also honoured in America, where it is an antecedent of the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights. In 1957, the American Bar Association erected the Runnymede Memorial.[115] In 1976, the UK lent one of four surviving originals of the 1215 Magna Carta to the U.S. for its bicentennial celebrations, and also donated an ornate case to display it. The original was returned after one year, but a replica and its case are still on display in the U.S. Capitol Crypt in Washington, D.C.[116]

[John Kettler]

Seedorf81,

Please see my #131 for some study links which will help you with your questions raised in your #169. One of the links I provided is to an extensive analysis conducted by the U.s. Department of Justice. Also, this piece from Forbes magazine has a lot to say about the limitation of certain studies, such as counting only criminals killed, while ignoring woundings or aborts of the planned crime. Cato Institute researchers took another tack and data mined random samples of nearly 5000 armed citizen encounters reported in newspapers from 2002-2011. What they turned up will surprise you, including the fact that armed citizens killed 2.5 times more criminals than did the police and had only 1/5 the rate of misidentifying an innocent as a perpetrator!

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/02/21/disarming-the-myths-promoted-by-the-gun-control-lobby/

I look at gun use in self-defense exactly the way we looked at air defense when I was doing military analysis: The primary job is to stop the attack; damaging or destroying the threat is a bonus result. The cases reported in the papers overwhelmingly show that criminals confronted by a gun seek safety in flight rather than going for that armed citizen's gun. Even when they do, the odds are agains them.

Regards,

John Kettler

[iMolestCats]

http://www.tacticalresponse.com/course.php?courseID=19

Whoa just saw that in california they passed a ban on all semi auto guns with a detachable magazine! Wow can't believe that.

Also db_zero if you are ever in the tennessee or kentucky area i recommend James Yeager's THE FIGHT class.

[iMolestCats]

I was introduced to gun by my father before I could drive. Once I took training at a much older age it opened a whole new world. I took my niece and nephew who never fired a real gun to a training class. They loved it and in their word "made 2 converts". Its their choice about whether they own guns or not, but at least I showed them the responsible path to gun ownership.

I got my first .22 bolt action rifle when i was seven and started actually training when i was 13. I took two fighting pistol classes and at 15 i took THE FIGHT, which is a class that simulates an encounter, and trying to make the right decision. Just this year (i am 16 now) i took a fighting rifle class which has improved my handling of an AR-15 greatly. It is truly remarkable what i have learned from a few two day classes once or twice a year.

[db_zero]

IMO-I don't care if your conservative, liberal or independent-the 2nd Amendment is meant for you.

World history would be far different if indigenous people were as well armed as their oppressors. There is a very valid reason why the Founding Fathers penned the 2nd Amendment. What came after is subject to debate, but IMO things would have been far different had the oppressed been as well armed as the oppressors.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Dude you are so far out there it is kind of scary. Manifest Destiny was a BS excuse for theft in the 19th century and is no more legit when you express it now. So basically your whole underpinning to being anti gun control is "We are the biggest bad asses and we can do what we want cause we have the guns/power. We stole this continent at the point of a gun, we then went on to put the world under our thumb and somehow distributed democracy". Tell that bit of BS in the Philippines. Earlier you mentioned how many people we saved from concentration camps-that wouldn't include the folks that we put in them I assume.

This doesn't have much to do with modern gun laws, but whenever I read about the evils we committed to build our country I wonder: would the world be a better place if the United States of America did not exist? Or alternatively, if it had never territorially expanded beyond the original 13 colonies? Or is it the case that Manifest Destiny was morally wrong but ironically had mostly positive consequences?

[db_zero]

http://www.tacticalresponse.com/course.php?courseID=19

Whoa just saw that in california they passed a ban on all semi auto guns with a detachable magazine! Wow can't believe that.

Its on the Governors desk. What happens next is hard to say. Governor Brown is hard to pin down on guns. Yes he is a Democrat and yes he has a past as Moonbeam.

However that being said and done he is a "proud gunowner". When he was mayor of Oakland he was known to pack heat as he encountered less than desirable's while on jogs. He lived in a rather spartan shack in a rather less than desirable part of Oakland.

I think he has at least 3 guns and rumor has it he owns an AR-15. He has vetoed some guns bill recently as he believed they would be ineffective.

After Newtown he said California already has enough gun laws on the books and he rather the focus be on more pressing issues, but the legislature that is dominated by liberals want even more laws.

I have no idea as to what will happen next. Some say Brown will veto the new guns laws. I say its a coin toss.

I am planning on getting out of this state sooner rather than later. The areas outside the large urban centers who seem bent on dictating their beliefs are seething.

[sburke]

IMO-I don't care if your conservative, liberal or independent-the 2nd Amendment is meant for you.

World history would be far different if indigenous people were as well armed as their oppressors. There is a very valid reason why the Founding Fathers penned the 2nd Amendment. What came after is subject to debate, but IMO things would have been far different had the oppressed been as well armed as the oppressors.

Not for me. I do not need a gun to vote. Don't get me wrong, I have friends who target shoot and hunt and I have been the very happy recipient of some of their culinary treats. I just don't swallow this BS that somehow guns are a necessary part of democracy. If the Native Americans had been that well armed there likely wouldn't be any US today. They'd have been better off just gunning us down on the beach or letting us starve our dumb a**es.

I'd also note that every time I hear someone say how the oppressed should have guns, they freak out when they learn who the oppressed are when they get guns. Black Panthers for example. How quickly the gun rights advocates seem to decry the arming of Black self defence units. Or the resistance movement by Puerto Rican independence activists. oh yeah, those are terrorists because we disagree with them. Taking up arms against an oppressive power gets viewed completely differently depending on your relationship to that power.

AIM at Wounded Knee, The Panthers, the MLN, FALN all groups using armed force against a perceived oppressor. How many of them did you support? Who gets to define them as terrorists, aren't they just doing what the gun advocates say is the very core of their right, to defend themselves against an oppressive gov't?

This doesn't have much to do with modern gun laws, but whenever I read about the evils we committed to build our country I wonder: would the world be a better place if the United States of America did not exist? Or alternatively, if it had never territorially expanded beyond the original 13 colonies? Or is it the case that Manifest Destiny was morally wrong but ironically had mostly positive consequences?

Maybe, maybe not. No one will ever know, but despite Jason's patronizing nationalistic rant, democracy did not burst out in full bloom in America with no prior history. We Americans owe much of our tradition and concept to what had been going on in Britain and elsewhere for hundreds of years. Democracy and economic change have a somewhat synergistic effect. America can't claim any sole patent on the idea.

As to bad things potentially having good effects, you could say the same thing about the British drug trade- for those not familiar, the British Empire in the 19th century essentially ran on a financial engine driven by the opium trade - makes today's drug cartels look like chumps. Poor Marx, Das Kapital should have had a chapter on that. Global trade and relations in the long run are a good thing, but I somehow doubt China saw it that way.

We do our country a dis-service when we try to excuse the things we have done wrong. It is no different than trying to excuse your own behavior when you screw up. You want to earn people's respect and provide an example- then you own up to your mistakes and do what you can to make them right. Jingoistic bombast just shows them you are as f**ked as they already think you are.

[db_zero]

You made a wrong assumption to begin with. America is not a democracy. America is a Republic.

[db_zero]

Yes America has made mistakes in the past. Whether you want to dwell on it is your business. I could cry and whine about what was done to my parents and their parents for past injustices, but they didn't. They made the best of their situation in the hopes that I would have a better life and my parents did and so have I.

[sburke]

Hey I didn't bring up the history, I just pointed out the inconsistency. Can we only discuss our history if it is in a good light and anything bad is "dwelling"? I'd suggest you have an inability to look at your/our selves objectively if that is the case. I also wouldn't express that "why are you whining attitude" in the Philippines. So your parents may not have gotten all the breaks- that isn't quite on the order of killing somewhere between 34,000 and a million people. Yeah the range based on source is huge. This site suggests 200,000 civilians http://history.state.gov/milestones/1899-1913/War.

I know I over characterized Jason's position. It just goes to the point of why we Americans so often get described as juvenile and arrogant that we take credit for all the hundreds of years of social political development that led up to the movements of the late 1700's as if everyone else just went half way and we showed 'em how to do it right. I expect that from an idiot like Sarah Palin. I expect better from folks who love to get into the nuts and bolts of stuff. History is a process, social developments are incredibly complex. Wrapping ourselves in the flag, taking the credit for what people had been struggling for over centuries and being in absolute denial that we rarely live up to our own hype does us no good.

However you get bonus points for correcting me- yes we are a Republic. Note the definition of a Republic.

(From http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/repvsdem.htm)

The distinction between our Republic and a democracy is not an idle one. It has great legal significance.

The Constitution guarantees to every state a Republican form of government (Art. 4, Sec. 4). No state may join the United States unless it is a Republic. Our Republic is one dedicated to "liberty and justice for all." Minority individual rights are the priority. The people have natural rights instead of civil rights. The people are protected by the Bill of Rights from the majority. One vote in a jury can stop all of the majority from depriving any one of the people of his rights; this would not be so if the United States were a democracy. (see People's rights vs Citizens' rights)

In a pure democracy 51 beats 49[%]. In a democracy there is no such thing as a significant minority: there are no minority rights except civil rights (privileges) granted by a condescending majority. Only five of the U.S. Constitution's first ten amendments apply to Citizens of the United States. Simply stated, a democracy is a dictatorship of the majority. Socrates was executed by a democracy: though he harmed no one, the majority found him intolerable.

Yes we are a Republic and a flawed one. The Civil Rights movement was/is essentially a struggle to apply the law of the Republic. It is to our credit that we are gradually correcting those flaws. The ability to honestly evaluate our actions and motives is essential to insuring we do follow through on these ideals. Ignoring our past actions as "dwelling" undermines our ability to (as the Army would say) be all that we can be. It isn't about flogging ourselves and feeling bad, that does no one any good. It is about understanding mistakes to avoid repeating them. How do we verify the success of our republic if we do not judge how well we have lived up to our ideals? Suggesting that looking at past actions is simply dwelling undermines the very foundation of what a Republic is all about. If you get to dismiss the concerns of the minority how long will the Republic stand?

Man I really tried to stay away from this thread, the gun issue to me is flawed from both sides, but hey I like eating wild boar. I just don't particularly like folks legally walking around my neighborhood armed to the teeth who can't even read the second amendment.

[Seedorf81]

Keep in mind that for a gun, or any other weapon, to be successfully used in self defense it does not necessarily have to injure anyone. In fact, there is strong evidence that in most self-defense uses the gun is not fired. The mere sight of a gun is usually all that is required to make a person with hostile intent have a change of heart.

So a nice harmless replica would do the trick? That could save some lives..

[Vanir Ausf B]

So a nice harmless replica would do the trick?

Or an unloaded gun, in most cases, yes. Large edges weapons also work well.

[Seedorf81]

Or an unloaded gun, in most cases, yes. Large edges weapons also work well.

Well, do you tell this to them NRA-boys or should I?

[Vanir Ausf B]

Well, do you tell this to them NRA-boys or should I?

The catch is that the instances in which you really need to shoot someone are the ones most likely to result in serious bodily harm to yourself or a loved one if you don't or can't, so the cost/benefit is not altogether clear.

I only own one gun: a bolt action hunting rifle that is not ideal for self defense to say the least, but I figure that if I ever pointed it at someone that would probably be enough. And I could shoot it if I had to. I just have to not miss...

[JonS]

Oh, look, what's this. Another mass shooting. In America. Four days after the last mass shooting. Stupid 3-year-old. He shoulda had a gun, then he coulda defended hisself.

But, you know; no biggie. It's not like it could have been predicted, or there's anything that could be done about it.

Exceptional idjits.

[para]

Oh, look, what's this. Another mass shooting. In America. Four days after the last mass shooting. Stupid 3-year-old. He shoulda had a gun, then he coulda defended hisself.

But, you know; no biggie. It's not like it could have been predicted, or there's anything that could be done about it.

Exceptional idjits.

Jons your inbox is full

[costard]

Someone asked if JasonC was being racist in his earlier analysis of gun crime statistics. Rather than jumping straight into an emotional and unproductive interpretation of his analysis, I'd like to look at the environment the 'minority' individuals come from and compare that to the environment experienced by European women, see if I can identify a reason for the discrepancy in statistics. The immediately identifiable difference is in the level of survivability and the tools required to ensure survival in those two markedly different environments. A gun is a tool. The expectation that a harsh environment doesn't lend itself to the adoption of effective tools in order to alleviate that harshness is in complete denial of human behaviour. With the extant and worsening social environment experienced by immigrants and minorities (not to mention every other poor bastard currently being screwed by our financial overlords), is it any wonder they (we) choose to adopt the gun as an effective tool?

[Mord]

Oh, look, what's this. Another mass shooting. In America. Four days after the last mass shooting. Stupid 3-year-old. He shoulda had a gun, then he coulda defended hisself.

But, you know; no biggie. It's not like it could have been predicted, or there's anything that could be done about it.

Exceptional idjits.

I agree. If only Chicago had some of the strictest gun laws in the country, this would've never have happened.

Mord.

[Buzz]

Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the country... much like D.C. . Not a single gun shop can be found in Chicago. Handguns were banned in Chicago for decades. Illinois is the only state in the nation with no provision to let private citizens carry guns in public..... and Illinois politicians want MORE gun laws!

So the playbook answer is ..... Get the Federal Government to make weapon ownership (especially evil looking weapons) so onerous, expensive, etc. nearly impossible as to essentially make them illegal. Of course if the Federal Government could make all weapon ownership outright illegal ..... per Good Senator Feinstein, "If I could've gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them -- Mr. and Mrs. America turn 'em all in -- I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here.".... there would be no gun violence in America... would there?

Sadly, the real issues driving gun violence will be overlooked yet again. More gang related shootings will occur. Politicians can not legislate away the true sources of gun violence. Politicians will not succeed with Good Senator Feinstein "outright ban" plan either.

[db_zero]

Chicago is known as Chiraq to many who reside there. There are 68,000 or so gang members in the area. A huge public housing complex was demolished. As a result a huge number of gang members from one gang was dispersed into areas that are under the control of a rival gang. Thus you have a turf war going on.

90% of America simply can't relate to this. Decades of government support and trillions of dollars has lead to this, yet the solution from Washington is more of the same with gun control thrown in for good measure.

Any wonder why the vast majority of Americans have simply thrown up their arms and given up?

[Mord]

Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the country...

I know.

Mord.

[sburke]

Someone asked if JasonC was being racist in his earlier analysis of gun crime statistics. Rather than jumping straight into an emotional and unproductive interpretation of his analysis, I'd like to look at the environment the 'minority' individuals come from and compare that to the environment experienced by European women, see if I can identify a reason for the discrepancy in statistics. The immediately identifiable difference is in the level of survivability and the tools required to ensure survival in those two markedly different environments. A gun is a tool. The expectation that a harsh environment doesn't lend itself to the adoption of effective tools in order to alleviate that harshness is in complete denial of human behaviour. With the extant and worsening social environment experienced by immigrants and minorities (not to mention every other poor bastard currently being screwed by our financial overlords), is it any wonder they (we) choose to adopt the gun as an effective tool?

My first reaction was yes. That was an emotional knee jerk reply. Fortunately I shut my trap before replying. Hey once in a while I do exercise some discretion - it's a fluke don't get used to it.

The problem with statistics is you can usually make them say anything you want. Understanding what they mean and figuring out a course of action based on them is a lot trickier. Is the disproportionate amount of gun violence in America amongst young men in minority communities? Undoubtedly yes. Is the Third World more violent than the First World, again yes. So what is the point? You could draw the conclusion that non European society and culture were more intrinsically violent.... or as Jason seems to indicate - Latin Americans and Africans. I didn't say you'd be right, I just said you could. Or you could suggest that poverty is one major aspect of violence. Jason threw out a couple bizarre examples of poverty not leading to that. Exceptions don't prove a rule, generally they indicate that the rule has other variables. He also used China as an example- how you get reliable statistics out of China I have no idea. I guess if they suit your purpose you don't question that. Not to mention it is one of the most regimented societies on the planet. You could probably use that to make an argument FOR gun control. Statistics in India on violence? I think I'd have the same question, with the caste system, does India really track violence among the poor?

So let's just look at what Jason actually said.

Murder is an activity of young men. It is practically unknown before sexual maturity. It is 10 times less common among women. It declines dramatically with age after 35 and by extreme amounts after age 50.

This pattern of physical aggression is seen in every social mammal - restricted to males and peaking soon after sexual maturity. The greatest levels of aggression are shown by a small minority of all populations in all cases.

We know precisely what causes human aggression because we can track its prevalence. It is a natural behavior of sexual competition. Young males compete for social dominance; they naturally resort to aggression against others, especially other young males, in that process.

We can socialize some of that away. We cannot socialize all of it away. Different cultures and human groups show very different levels of such aggression. Not 5% differences, differences of more than an order of magnitude. There is no mystery about it whatever.

All there is, is political ideology preventing people from facing those brute facts of human nature.

The reason the murder rate in the US is higher than it is in western Europe has nothing to do with your laws or ours, your weapons or ours, your medical systems or ours. It is purely a function of your people and ours. Different people, different outcomes. Entirely predictably. People of the same background in Europe and the US have the same patterns of aggression and criminality. People of the same background in Latin America and the US have the same patterns of aggression and criminality - actually, lower by half or more in the US, but from that baseline.

All there is to it, I am afraid.

So yeah Jason essentially feels Blacks and Latins have some deterministic genetic propensity to violence driven by their sex drive. It is bigotry clothed in some BS social dogma. It is racism make no mistake with not a shred of science to it.

Just for a moment look at one aspect - Latin America and Africa historically have a completely different political/social history than India, China or Micronesia. China and India while suffering the effects of colonialism essentially mantained their national identity and cultural standards. Africa and Latin America can not make that same claim. The indigenous population of Latin America had it's social structures destroyed by the Europeans powers and even into the 20th century had every attempt at forming popular governments crushed by Western powers particularly the US to prevent any interference with our business profits. That is actually a good tale compared to Africa. Oh but yeah all that violence is their own genetic fault, we didn't have anything to do with that did we? And the drug violence - hell where does all the profit in the drug trade come from - yeah White America doesn't do coke does it?

Hell it is much easier to just blame them though isn't it. Thinking is too friggin hard.

Back to the OPs question. Personally gun control is to me the wrong answer to the wrong question. I don't personally care if guns are outlawed..other than maybe missing that wild boar on my table.. The problem is it doesn't fix what is I think at the root of the violence in our society. The mass shootings aren't the issue, it is the daily level of violence that is the problem. A nut who wants to kill a bunch of people will find a way. The social inequality in our society however isn't going to be fixed by gun control and that is the source of most of the violence.

[BLSTK]

There's also this:

Selling weapons is a billion dollar industry. Capitalism lives while citizens die.