These poor people are forced to wear the chains of the liberal welfare state. Trapped in ghettoes and told by the left-wing elite that they have no hope, it's no wonder their lives decay into frustrated violence.
All so the left can play games by persuading them that freedom's just around the corner, if only they'd vote for a Democrat one more time.
Use that fact in every discussion with some middle-class ditzbrain screaming about "gun violence." Ask her when was the last time anyone on her street was shot. When she can't remember, you have gone a long way to creating HCI's worst nightmare - the unscaring of middle-class nonminorities when they realize just how little risk their own families are at from gunfire.
Racialize the gun debate! The tiny cadre of antigun extremists hates it when you neutralize them by unscaring middle-class nonminorities - as that destroys their last hope of success.
Scandals of antigun politicians - and facts about race and violent crime!
I first discovered this years ago, when I got tired of anti-gunners claiming that a study "proved" that the difference in gun laws explained the difference in the US/Canada homicide rates.
So, unlike them, I actually looked up and *read* the study. (The study is Sloan JH, Kellermann AL, Reay DT, et al. "Handgun Regulations, Crime, Assaults, and Homicide: A Tale of Two Cities." N Engl J Med 1988; 319: 1256-62.)
Even aside from the fact that it was performed by *doctors* and published in a *medical* journal (just what do doctors know about criminology, sociology, and law?), the flaws of the "study" were obvious on their face, because the data published in the study CONTRADICTED THEIR OWN CONCLUSION.
The authors concluded that the difference in gun laws "had" to be the cause, because, they claimed, the socioeconomic situations of the two cities were, they claimed, quite similar.
Actually, their *own* data showed that the homicide rates for whites (which made up the majority of both cities) were almost identical (in fact, the rate was slightly higher in *Canada*). The *entire* difference in the overal homicide rates was due to a higher homicide rate (than whites) among non-white groups, and the fact that Seattle had a higher proportion of the racial group which had the highest homicide rate of all (blacks).
What's really funny is that one would have to be a racist IN ORDER TO SUPPORT THE GUN CONTROL CONCLUSION, because one would have to conclude that if gun control works and explains the Seattle/Vancouver homicide difference, it only works on non-whites and has no effect on white people.
Apparently, the gun control folks believe that only non-whites go on homicidal sprees when given "free access" to firearms...
Instead, it's far more reasonable (and not at all racist) to conclude that it's not the gun laws, it's the socioeconomic conditions of various subpopulations.
A good overview of this, and other major flaws, in the study can be found here -- on a Canadian website, of all places.
But hey, even if it's a flawed, shoddy study that provides "support" for an anti-gunner's preconceptions, he'll cite it forever -- and so will the media.
Classy.
I think it's a good thing Moore did not do his Freeped screening in Houston.
I do not believe he would have enjoyed what I could have said to him.