OK, one explanation that doesn't work is the random one: blacks have fewer guns but higher "gun damage" as you put it. This is a very confusing non-answer.We need you to take a shot at explaining the high gun damage numbers among blacks.
I also don't agree with your view that blacks are inherently more volatile when exposed to guns. Dangit, I didn't say that. The stats are ugly. Gun violence within a subset of the black community is heinous. The situation has demonstrated volatility, and currently demonstrates volatility. You don't have the sensitivity or understanding to discuss it.
I don't know (or care much) if you are racist. I am just pointing out that you seem to bring racial tension to our forums. A lot.
What conclusion do you draw about your SNCC Rev. who openly discussed gunplay as a tactic, and was recalled? Why have you posted about that...twice?
Why have you quoted my honest (but very unflattering) NBIC numbers four times?
Tom, the singer Norma in the polka dot dress does Edda James beautifully. She's built pretty well, and learned real dancing elsewhere.
You are missing out down at the Friends of the NRA.
I think the violence (gun and otherwise) we see is a result of a history of discrimination. But you can't advance that thought for us?
1. No, they are not. How about racist applications to dog licenses? If we cancel dog licenses, the discrimination factor will be zero.Your argument is far from brilliant. How about real estate licences, and stock brokerage licences? Are they not just as subject to racist decisions?I don't have an overall solution, but think that eliminating government discrimination based on race would be a good start.
2. Even if they were, there is no protected right to sell real estate or stocks, but we do have a protected right to keep and bear arms.
Last edited by a moderator: