I think the thing that confuses the debate and makes the statistics seem weird is that nobody tracks the order things happen in. Step 1: working-class black people are married and poor, but peaceful and gainfully employed Step 2: some working-class black people gain higher qualifications and their pay increases. They start organizing and demanding equal pay. They're going middle-class. Step 3: white employers get upset, that black people want to get paid as much as white people, so they mass-import a bunch of poor, underqualified foreigners, to break the strikes and drive wages down Step 4: black men are increasingly unemployed or paid starvation wages, black women stop marrying them or file for divorce and marry the state Step 5: black area full of fatherless children, organizing into gangs Step 6: shoot outs go crazy, so gun laws are enacted, but don't help much Step 7: rich white people (the same ones who destroyed the employment market for black men because they're actually a bunch of greedy, lazy fucks who like having a subservient underclass) show up and demand gun laws to stop the shooting and raise the amount of welfare that black women get as a reward for being a Baby Mama because They Care About The Children. Places with high marriage rates and low male unemployment don't need those gun laws because they don't have the fatherless children, who run around shooting people for sport.

Replies (3)

Nobody promoting tighter gun laws ever mentions that black men from such neighborhoods are safer fighting as soldiers overseas in war zones, than staying in those neighborhoods. Is that because the war zone is a gun-free zone? Black people legit join the military to escape violence. image
That's not surprising at all considering the type of wars the US has fought lately. In most military positions your chance of dying is nearly zero, even during war. Training is actually more dangerous than deployment in a lot of cases. It'd be very different in a different context...
โ†‘