Black people primarily need to arm themselves as history has shown from a tyrannical government, the Ku Klux Klan, and gang violence in certain neighborhoods. In order for citizenry to attain proficiency in firearms I believe that black people should acquire arms, take lessons and join organizations such as the NRA and their local gun clubs. Most if not all of these organizations will provide training.
…
The world is a dangerous place; criminal elements in the community, political government excesses, home safety in an increasingly dangerous society. These kinds of things speak for themselves. For it is better to be prepared than victimized.
John Kirksey
March 12, 2014
Gun Control
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]
I have one thing to add: what’s this “increasingly dangerous society”?
Violent crime has been on a steady downward trend for two decades. That’s not an “increasingly dangerous society”, that’s an increasingly safer society, albeit with some pockets that are not following the overall trend.
I agree that individual criminal activity appears to be going down but government criminal activity appears to be increasing.
Yes, the places where the right to bear arms is honored are becoming safer as a result, while the places that continue to infringe that right are still on the “increasingly dangerous” trend. No surprise; John Lott spelled this out in great detail years ago.
Except, of course, places like the city that I live in that seems to defy your statistics.
NOLA?
No answer?
“Places like the city I live in that defies the statistics”. Well, no. Statistics are descriptions of overall behavior of large groups. Pointing at one city that does something different proves nothing at all — it merely confirms we’re dealing with statistics.
Indeed, as John Lott pointed out in a followup article talking about people who tried to prove him wrong: there was a “study” by some characters (I would obviously not call them researchers) at CMU, who “proved Lott wrong” by carefully selecting 1/7th of his data and showing that this 14%, studied by itself, yields the opposite conclusion. Well, duh. If you are allowed to throw away 85% of the data that you don’t like, it’s hardly surprising you can “prove” something else. But the only thing that actually proves is how dishonest and corrupt you are.
It’s also worth noting that Lott made all his data — the raw unedited data — available for anyone who wanted to study it on his own. That’s very different from the global warming crowd, who go out of their way to hide their data. It’s a fundamental principle of science that anything claimed to be based on secret data is not science at all and never will be.
Still no answer?
Lying by omission is still lying; making a completely unsupportable claim (because you *won’t* support it) is the very next thing to that.