Mitigating Gun Violence

In the wake of the tragic Newton School Massacre the gun grabbers are in the forefront of America’s news media again. This always happens whenever there’s a shooting that viscerally impacts the Middle Class’ sensibilities. Immediately after any such a tragedy various Liberal and Progressive elements start calling for sundry forms of bans upon weapons and ammunition in an attempt at supposedly mitigating gun violence in America.

Americans, of course, are at least equally invested in mitigating gun violence in America. Their chosen means of doing so just radically differ from those of the Liberal and Progressives. Both schools of thought, however, are horribly flawed insofar as probable long-term effectiveness are concerned.

Utilitarian JusticePerhaps a truly utilitarian approach is needed in these circumstances, one that actually addresses gun violence in America.

The rare but well-publicized spree killings aside, you cannot truly address gun violence in America without addressing the “Black Community.” Hence, that is where any real, pragmatic efforts need to be focused and enacted. Any other measures are absolutely assured of failure.

It’s a simple fact that Blacks make up only 12 – 13% of the US population but account for 56.4%% of the murderers who used firearms to kill in the country and 50.9% of the victims of murderers who used firearms.

White Black Other
All Homicides 45.8% 52.2% 2.0%
Gun Homicides 41.9% 56.4% 1.7%

The above statistics are an aggregate of homicides between 1976-2005 and quite clearly show where the problem is and what demographic is consistently and disproportionately to their numbers causing it. They also clearly show that, if one wants to dramatically reduce homicides in general and firearm-related homicides in specific, then we have to address the problem of the “Black Community” instead of firearms.

If we took the utilitarian approach and exterminated, enslaved, sequestered, or exiled the Blacks, we’d immediately reduce homicides, especially firearm-related ones, by over 50%. Other crime statistics, unemployment numbers, and poverty rates would drop in similar manner.

If the wholesale remove of the Blacks from America is too extreme, given that many Blacks pose no threat to themselves or others, we could just exterminate, enslave, sequester, or exile the “scary looking” Blacks. This, while having a lesser salutary effect upon homicide statistics, would likely address the worst parts of the situation and eliminate the worst of the homicides.

An even less extreme methodology would be to simply sterilize, i.e., geld, all the Black males in America. While this wouldn’t address the problem in our times it would ensure that our children and our children’s children would not have to contend with the homicide statistics that our generation has to deal with.

NOTE: I’m not being sexist. It is simply that, as veterinary medicine has proven, neutering males is far cheaper and safer than spaying females.

Any of the above measures would curtail American homicides, especially firearm-related homicides, far more effectively and surely than any other measures that could be considered. That’s the primary advantage of the utilitarian approach; it’s results oriented and solely focused on providing the greatest good to greatest number of people.

Nor can there be any valid Constitutional argument against the extermination, enslavement, sequestration, or exile of the Blacks, in whole or in part. Our Founding Fathers and our later forbears never envisioned what the state of America would be with free Black population of any size living within her borders. The Constitution was designed as a “living document” to be amended and revised to reflect the changing circumstances of the country.

Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

They Can Afford It!

SocialismOne of the more ubiquitous, and certainly one of the most strident, rants of America’s domestics enemies is that the government should tax the “rich” more – much, much more. This is presented with two generalized rationalizations: the blatant, glaring, and glaringly stupid falsehood that the “rich” don’t pay their fair share and the somewhat less stupid idea that they can afford to pay more so it’s OK to take their wealth from them.

Presenting facts backed up by numbers and charts is, by and large, useless with the Statists and Socialists that call themselves Liberals and Progressives and it’s utterly useless with their minority tenants, who foolishly see themselves as beneficiaries of this agenda. Hence, I’ll leave that aside for now.

I will instead focus on the “They can afford it” rationalization since it is not based upon falsehoods, being instead based upon utilitarianism or consequentialism. I wonder how they would respond to a similar argument on a subject that Liberals have strong and visceral feelings about – abortion.

They Can Afford Them

Let America as a nation and society outlaw the abortion of White babies but continue to allow minorities, especially the Blacks, to engage in the unsavory practice. Let America as a people go so far as to guarantee these minorities access to abortion through subsidies and funding.

Due to the striations in household economies, including access to health insurance, Whites can, more often than not, afford to have these children. While an unplanned pregnancy might be an inconvenience to them, it is unlikely to drive Whites into true poverty. Statistics show this is not similarly true for minorities.

Furthermore, there is a long waiting list for White babies. There are far more prospective adoptive parents than there are White babies up for adoption. This is sadly not true for minority babies, especially Black babies who are seven times less likely to be adopted even after their prices – euphemistically called “adoption finalization costs” – are discounted up to 33% by the various agencies.

Finally, one also has to take the modern definition of racism into account. Since 64% of the women partaking of abortions are non-White, making it illegal for them to continue to do so would cause a disproportionate impact upon these minority women. Such disproportionate impact has been held by the courts to be racist and discriminatory even if the laws or practices in question have absolutely no racial component.

As can be seen from these facts there’s no reasons based upon consequences for continuing to allow Whites to abort their babies but many reasons to make sure that minorities, especially Blacks, are continued to be allowed to do so. The Whites can afford the children and the adoption system can handle those White babies that end up in it; neither is statistically the case for non-Whites.


The arguments above are all factual within the limits of polling accuracy and statistical analysis as applied to population groups. In point of fact, these arguments make up a large part of basis for the Liberals’ ongoing fight to keep abortion legal and have the government subsidize it. That doesn’t make this “modest proposal” any less abhorrent.

It’d be an interesting thought experiment to graph the outrage of who’s more bothered by criminalizing abortion for Whites and who’s more bothered by not doing so for minorities.

Yes, the rich can afford to pay more in taxes. That ability to pay more doesn’t mean that it’s right to tax them more just because others want their money, just as the facts of abortion demographics don’t make it right to base the abortion laws upon individuals’ and society’s ability to afford having and raising the children.

The argument that they can afford it so it’s OK to take from them is an example of the grievous flaws in utilitarianism or consequentialism.

Tags: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |