crime scene
Shutterstock
Previous Post
Next Post

Murders occur overwhelmingly in dense urban areas, many with tough anti-gun restrictions, and far less in suburban and rural areas where firearm ownership is more common, according to a national study of killings.

“This research shows that murders in the U.S. are highly concentrated in tiny areas in the U.S. and that they are becoming even more concentrated in recent years,” said the report from John R. Lott’s Crime Prevention Research Center.

The new report, shared with Secrets, showed that big cities, including Chicago, Los Angeles, and Washington, D.C., are murder centers and that even in those cities, the areas where killings occur are growing more concentrated.

Lott’s report is all numbers and little editorial. It describes a nation that is seen on TV every night: shootings are common in cities. …

His top 10 list of murder areas included Chicago, Los Angeles, Houston, Philadelphia, New York City, Detroit, Baltimore, Dallas, Miami, and Washington.

“Murder isn’t a nationwide problem,” Lott’s study said. “It’s a problem in a small set of urban areas and even in those counties murders are concentrated in small areas inside them, and any solution must reduce those murders,” it added.

Lott’s crime center often writes about gun use and crime, and he included a note that challenges conventional thinking that the surge in legal gun ownership has led to more killings.

“According to a 2021 PEW Research Center survey, the household gun ownership rate in rural areas was 79% higher than in urban areas. Suburban households are 37.9% more likely to own guns than urban households. Despite lower gun ownership, urban areas experience much higher murder rates. One should not put much weight on this purely ‘cross-sectional’ evidence over one point in time, and many factors determine murder rates. However, it is still interesting to note that so much of the country has both very high gun ownership rates and zero murders,” he said.

—  Paul Bedard, Washington Secrets Columnist in Murders up in Urban Areas, Not Gun-Friendly Counties

Previous Post
Next Post

81 COMMENTS

  1. Don’t believe this hogwash, Capitolvanian ignerrant rubes.
    Real and valid reserch has indicated that the cause of this crime is the Far Right Industrial Complex conspiracy of putting floride in the public water systems. Reserch PROVED that nearly all largecity merderers injested floridatated water at some point, while people in rurel
    areas are free to drink their unpolluted well water and cheap beer. John Lott has already been proved to be a fake, loosers.

    • Fake dacian raises a fun point, why are we continuing to put fluoride in the water based off a department of energy research regarding dental benefits (and cheaply disposing of fluoride produced in working with radioactive elements) but hey how bad is some extra cancer and lower iq amongst the general public.

    • I think we can tell that this was written by Fakedacian, as it is actually based on reality. To compare it to the real lil’ d drivel, continue reading further in the string for his usual verbal diarrhea.

  2. Consider me surprised. I might even sort the FBI homicide rate by race and get myself another surprise.
    Next thing you tell me single mothers raising fatherless, respectless children in inner cities, joining gangs and refusing education in their early teens isn’t a good thing.
    Shocked. I am just absolutely shocked.

    • Funny enough the pattern holds (not as high but still there) across racial lines for antisocial behavior without a father in the picture.

    • Your comment is awaiting moderation

      The problem with John lot is that he is dishonest.

      He uses fraudulent accounts to post bogus reviews in support of his so-called ‘scholarly reports’.

      He’s the George Santos/Anthony Delawder of gun research.

      “Scholar Invents Fan To Answer His Critics
      By Richard Morin
      February 1, 2003
      Mary Rosh thinks the world of John R. Lott Jr., the controversial American Enterprise Institute scholar whose book “More Guns, Less Crime” caused such a stir a few years ago.

      In postings on Web sites in this country and abroad, Rosh has tirelessly defended Lott against his harshest critics. He is a meticulous researcher, she’s repeatedly told those who say otherwise. He’s not driven by the ideology of the left or the right. Rosh has even summoned memories of the classes she took from Lott a decade ago to illustrate Lott’s probity and academic gifts.

      “I have to say that he was the best professor I ever had,” Rosh gushed in one Internet posting.

      Indeed, Mary Rosh and John Lott agree about nearly everything.

      Well they should, because Mary Rosh is John Lott — or at least that’s the pseudonym he’s used for three years to defend himself against his critics in online debates, Lott acknowledged this week.

      “I probably shouldn’t have done it — I know I shouldn’t have done it — but it’s hard to think of any big advantage I got except to be able to comment fictitiously,” said Lott, an economist who has held senior research positions at the University of Chicago and Yale.

      Moreover, the AEI resident scholar acknowledged on Friday that he permitted his 13-year-old son to write an effusive review of “More Guns, Less Crime” and then post it on the Amazon.com Web site. It was signed “Maryrosh.”

      Lott said that he frequently has used the name “Mary Rosh” to defend himself in online debates. The name is an amalgam of the first two letters of his four sons’ first names. In a posting to the Web site maintained by Tim Lambert, an Australian professor who has relentlessly attacked Lott’s guns studies, “Mary Rosh” claims to be a former student of Lott at the University of Pennsylvania, where the economist taught between 1991 and 1995.“

      When a reporter attempted to read the posting to him over the telephone, Lott stopped him after the first few words. “I’m sure I did that. I shouldn’t have done it.”

      Julian Sanchez, a Cato Institute staffer, is the cybersleuth who tracked Mary Rosh back to John Lott.

      “I compared that IP with the header of an email Dr. Lott had sent me from his home address. And by yet another astonishing coincidence, it had originated at the very same IP address. Now, what are the odds of that?” he wrote in a posting on his Web site. “Sarcasm aside, we’re a little old to be playing dress up, aren’t we Dr. Lott?”

      Lott said he initially used his own name in online debates with critics. “But you just get into really emotional things with people. You also run into other problems.” So he started using the name Mary Rosh. “I should not have done it, there is no doubt. But it was a way to get information into the debate.”

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/2003/02/01/scholar-invents-fan-to-answer-his-critics/f3ae3f46-68d6-4eee-a65e-1775d45e2133/

  3. Just one more law, yeah, that should fix the problem.

    /s

    Murder is not a gun problem, and never has been. But to hear the anti-gun talk about it its a concept of “guns, that’s the problem, so just one more law and taking rights from thousands/millions of law abiding who are not committing crimes/murder should fix the problem. We promise, here lets pass and sign this bill and poof-abra-cadabra and crime/murders will go away.”

    Man kind has always had those elements committing crime/murders, way before guns came along. From the first caveman to pick up a rock and bash-in the head of another cave man to the brutal and horrible world domination attempts by what is today the United Kingdom putting thousands to death annually by hacking them to pieces and other methods and in the future there will be those elements committing crime/murders.

    Its not a gun problem. Its a human nature mental illness problem and there is no law or ban or restriction that will make it go away.

    Our country has been through this before for other things – we said ‘Oh, lets have midnight basketball for the inner city kids and the crime rate will go down.” It didn’t actually – we said “Lets ban black people from having firearms and the crime rate will go down and no one will be murdered” it didn’t work but in the mean time the democrat party created KKK was murdering black people by hanging them and setting them on fire – we said “lets make medical drugs illegal to have without prescription and the suicide rate and illicit use to commit murder with them will go down” and suicide rates and murder rates using those drugs increased – we said “lets restrict social media by requiring them to get rid of hate speech and hate crimes will go down.” It didn’t work – and a thousand things more. The single common thing in all of that is human nature mental illness (in some aspect) of those who committed these acts.

    You can not solve human nature mental illness with a law or a ban or a restriction – and the more concentrated people are into an area the more likely there are those with that human nature mental illness that results in crime and murder. Its not complicated and kind of fourth grade math to realize that and its the same pattern that has been repeated over and over again all through the history of man kind and its going to repeat over and over again into the future.

    So when that time comes where that human nature mental illness problem criminal threat comes to you be prepared to be your own first responder because its pretty darn likely no one else is going to be there to save you in that moment of imminent threat.

    • Except Booger Brain your advanced paranoia makes it impossible for your twisted mind to accept cold hard facts and those facts are now history proving that tough gun laws such as practiced in all of the industrialized countries of the world has resulted in way lower firearms deaths. Now you paranoid nut case try and lie your way out of this one. See a Shrink.

      • Maybe you should read about the history of the Roman Empire. The Romans were a truly murderous lot–in fact, killing of slaves wasn’t even a crime. Chinese history is even more bloody, as one empire succeeded the prior empire through war and conquest. Losing armies were slaughtered to the last man–even, according to their histories, hundreds of thousands of soldiers. Booger is right; humans are a vile murderous lot, and it doesn’t take guns to bring out the worst in them. As stated by a character in a recent movie, “every one of us is a murderer in the right circumstances.” Banning guns will not change human nature.

      • And what’s the total rate of violent crime in these paradisiacal places? Go look up some numbers and then get back to me.

  4. quote————–“Murder isn’t a nationwide problem,———quote

    Lotts biased studies have been repudiated time and time again by most experts that study crime. Red States with lax gun laws have higher murder rates than Blue States but Lott deliberately ignores that fact while using far right propaganda to scream about higher murder rates in cities which are true but do not reflect the overall crime rate in the entire state. It’s just one of many of John Lotts big lies.

    Lott conveniently ignores the fact that big cities in all countries have higher poverty rates therefore higher crime rates and in the U.S. the situation is made more horrific because of all the second hand guns being shipped into big cities from Red States with lax gun laws.

    Lott ignores the fact that in foreign countries a street robbery usually does not result in a shoot out because guns are more thoroughly vetted and hard to get and concealed carry is outlawed. Lott further ignores that people who try to shoot it out when robbed make up the majority of people killed in robberies.

    The Far Right warped mentality worships money as more important than their own lives as they greedily grasp every penny that passes through their hands so tightly it screams for mercy. The Far Right are so violent and depraved they will tell you with a straight face people should be executed or gunned down on the spot even if a child steals a loaf of bread because he is starving. In times past the depraved far right did indeed hang starving street children for stealing a loaf of bread.

    Lott also ignores the fact that the majority of homicides are domestic with someone being murdered by someone they know and most of the time it is someone living in the home with them. Lott concentrates on sensational street crime to cover up the real truth about most U.S. homicides, gun accidents, and suicides with guns.

    Lott ignores the fact that with a gun in the home the chance of suicide skyrockets both because of the ease of using a gun and the fact that most people do not survive a suicide by a firearm but often do survive when they try other means as verified by testimony of most First Responders.

    Lott ignores the fact that due to a lack of strict gun laws the U.S. has the highest firearms death rate of all industrialized countries. He ignores that fact because he will not admit that the U.S. does not even regard the safety of its own children when it comes to being inconvenienced by tough sane gun laws which have a proven track record in all other industrialized countries of the world.

    Lott ignores the fact that due to weapons of mass destruction being available the U.S. also has the highest record of mass murder by maniacs both because of the availability of such weapons and the fact that due to the lack of tough gun laws any manaic can buy a second hand one with no background checks or mental tests before purchase of such a weapon of mass destruction.

    Lott ignores the fact that the U.S. has a lack of social safety nets that civilized countries have had for decades. Lack of affordable housing, lack of job retraining, lack of funding to make college more affordable, lack of child care facilities for working mothers, a livable wage to help cut down on extreme poverty, lack of affordable mental health care, lack of affordable life saving drugs, and a lack of government funded drug rehabilitation centers. When you mix in all these factors with the easy availability of deadly weapons you create a country that is an unsafe hell hole to live in and a front runner for mass murder and homicides.

    Lott ignores the fact that it is far right Republicans who give billions of the working man’s tax dollars away in the form of subsidies to large greedy corporations who pay zero taxes rather than use those working man’s funded tax dollars to fund the above badly needed social programs that all other civilized nations have had for decades.

    • LOL no they haven’t and that is precisely why they are attacked so often but typically by better worded arguments. Oh and yes even NY uses Lott’s studies for policy development. We often seen it thrown out at the governor appointed official level but it is the most academically rigorous source we have on this topic.

    • @dacian

      “Lotts biased studies have been repudiated time and time again by most experts that study crime. ”

      apparently you don’t know what ‘repudiated’ means.

      They have argued against them, they have said they were wrong or not valid, in their bias context but his studies have never been actually dis proven and actually shown to not be true by them and in fact have been upheld and validated by many independent non-biased researchers.

      and for the rest of your nonsense its just that nonsense you always want to spout off not understanding any of it nor the subject matter at hand. Quit trying to murder the English language by trying to use it, learn to read and comprehend what you copy-n-paste.

      • to Booger Brain

        quote———–in fact have been upheld and validated by many independent non-biased researchers.———quote

        And here is a complete article proving John Lott is a complete charlatan. Below is just a snippet from it.

        Unfortunately, Lott’s book fits the pattern in a career distinguished by dishonesty. If you are interested in an honest, fact-based analysis of the gun debate, books such as Private Guns, Public Health by David Hemenway and The Gun Debate by Phillip Cook are excellent places to start. The War on Guns is not worthy of your time.

        https://www.vox.com/2016/8/30/12700222/nra-social-scientist-claims-debunked

        And Booger Brain you asshole Repudiate means to reject or not accept which is exactly what the experts have said about John Lotts disingenuous and wild pro-gun propaganda. Now who is the moron when it comes to the English language.

        • David Hemenway is a charlatan. He has, time and again, cherry picked his data in order to “prove” his arguments. He does not argue from the data to the conclusion, as a proper rese3archer would do, but molds the data to prove the pre-determined conclusion. Time and again he has refused to provide access to his data set, while Lott will gladly give his data to anyone who asks. Hemenway does not perform science, he performs politics bought and paid for by Mr. Bloomberg.

        • @dacian

          No, that’s a link to a biased anti-gun opinion.

          And Hemenway… are you serious? The guy has been debunked so many times, even by his own anti-gun colleges. His data is always cherry picked and excludes what does not support his points even though its data that is exactly on point for his theory, he argues one thing on his ‘selective’ data then reaches different conclusions and gets lost in his own studies. Mid way though most of his studies he changes course to go in a different direction and relies heavily on ‘counfouding factors’. Hemminways funding comes from Bloomberg, hes bought and paid for so hes going to give the money want they want and that’s an anti-gun study that’s as biased as it can be.

          Do you know what ‘confounding factors’ are in research? They are basically factors that are there but not measured – and what that means is they don’t know the effect they have. But Hemmingway, and you can see it in his data if you know what to look for, uses the typical anti-gun method – he includes these ‘confounding factors’ and somehow without being measured they suddenly show up in his numbers as absolutes. This is how anti-gun study’s fill their plot holes to smooth things out to make it look legitimate, to make their conclusions match the theory they started with – they leave out causality on purpose because causality factors is what proves the conclusion to be actually true or false but if they use their ‘confounding factors’ it gives the appearance of being true by matching their their starting theory but isn’t true when the data is subject to examination under causality factors.

          And your link….look closely at what they say. For example, when they are talking about suicide – their overall claim is that gun suicides happen because a gun exists, that is 100% false. Just about the entire mental health professional community, and the DSM-5 – all point to a mental health issue as the reason for suicide. Then your link authors point at Lott who is basically saying that the gun is not the reason for the suicide and they say his research is invalid and leaves out this and that when Lott is basically saying the same thing as the mental health professional community and the DSM-5 in that another reason exists for the suicide which the mental health professional community and the DSM-5 also says by saying that suicide is due to mental health issues.

          Your whole link is one big maze of slant and deception.

          “Repudiate means to reject or not accept which is exactly what the experts have said about John Lotts disingenuous and wild pro-gun propaganda. Now who is the moron when it comes to the English language.”

          And what I said was “They have argued against them, they have said they were wrong or not valid,” which is saying they rejected them and did not accept them. Can’t you comprehend what you read in English?

          On the other hand, your usage of “repudiate” strongly implied Lotts studies were invalid and that is simply false.

          You are a moron. Its all right their in front of you, but instead of being able to look at it objectively and see the many fallacies in your link you like to be spoon fed like a baby because you can’t comprehend what you read and it fits your confirmation bias so you read it that way.

          Learn to read and comprehend.

      • The problem with John lot is that he is dishonest.

        He uses fraudulent accounts to post bogus reviews in support of his so-called ‘scholarly reports’.

        He’s the George Santos/Anthony Delawder of gun research.

        “Scholar Invents Fan To Answer His Critics
        By Richard Morin
        February 1, 2003
        Mary Rosh thinks the world of John R. Lott Jr., the controversial American Enterprise Institute scholar whose book “More Guns, Less Crime” caused such a stir a few years ago.

        In postings on Web sites in this country and abroad, Rosh has tirelessly defended Lott against his harshest critics. He is a meticulous researcher, she’s repeatedly told those who say otherwise. He’s not driven by the ideology of the left or the right. Rosh has even summoned memories of the classes she took from Lott a decade ago to illustrate Lott’s probity and academic gifts.

        “I have to say that he was the best professor I ever had,” Rosh gushed in one Internet posting.

        Indeed, Mary Rosh and John Lott agree about nearly everything.

        Well they should, because Mary Rosh is John Lott — or at least that’s the pseudonym he’s used for three years to defend himself against his critics in online debates, Lott acknowledged this week.

        “I probably shouldn’t have done it — I know I shouldn’t have done it — but it’s hard to think of any big advantage I got except to be able to comment fictitiously,” said Lott, an economist who has held senior research positions at the University of Chicago and Yale.

        Moreover, the AEI resident scholar acknowledged on Friday that he permitted his 13-year-old son to write an effusive review of “More Guns, Less Crime” and then post it on the Amazon.com Web site. It was signed “Maryrosh.”

        Lott said that he frequently has used the name “Mary Rosh” to defend himself in online debates. The name is an amalgam of the first two letters of his four sons’ first names. In a posting to the Web site maintained by Tim Lambert, an Australian professor who has relentlessly attacked Lott’s guns studies, “Mary Rosh” claims to be a former student of Lott at the University of Pennsylvania, where the economist taught between 1991 and 1995.“

        When a reporter attempted to read the posting to him over the telephone, Lott stopped him after the first few words. “I’m sure I did that. I shouldn’t have done it.”

        Julian Sanchez, a Cato Institute staffer, is the cybersleuth who tracked Mary Rosh back to John Lott.

        “I compared that IP with the header of an email Dr. Lott had sent me from his home address. And by yet another astonishing coincidence, it had originated at the very same IP address. Now, what are the odds of that?” he wrote in a posting on his Web site. “Sarcasm aside, we’re a little old to be playing dress up, aren’t we Dr. Lott?”

        Lott said he initially used his own name in online debates with critics. “But you just get into really emotional things with people. You also run into other problems.” So he started using the name Mary Rosh. “I should not have done it, there is no doubt. But it was a way to get information into the debate.”

        https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/2003/02/01/scholar-invents-fan-to-answer-his-critics/f3ae3f46-68d6-4eee-a65e-1775d45e2133/

        • No your logic compiling method reeks of crowd sourcing also what exactly are you trying to refute as one data point does not make a trend that has been observed for longer than you have likely been alive?

        • So actually bothered to read your link and it’s even less than normal for you. Pseudonym posting defending the work on its factual basis and hyping his book……………k how does that invalidate any of his claims again?

        • I’ll say it again: Bellesisles.

          Miner49er and his ilk are the same intellectual manques who made a celebrity of out the utter fraud Michael Bellesisles. They can’t disprove Lott’s research, so they attack him ad hominem. It’s just unfortunate that he gave them ammunition for it.

        • “they attack him ad hominem“

          He is a dishonest researcher who uses fraudulent accounts to support his work in public.

          He admitted it himself, read the linked Washington Post article. If it was not accurate why didn’t John Lott sue them for defamation?

        • You fail to disprove his work your argument is invalid and ad hominem as others have stated. You a new one taking a shift? Usually you have something to offer besides nothing in your argument.

  5. 5,6,7,8 who do we appreciate
    And it’s one, two, three, what are we fighting for.
    #9 #9 #9
    The benefits of using a revolving are they dont shit all over the street.
    Out in the streets there was violence
    And lots of work to be done
    Working so hard like a soldier
    Still cant kill everyone
    Oh No.

  6. anyone with an average IQ realizes it’s the failed policies of libetard Nazi’s. Democrats really are domestic terrorists and hate American citizens.

  7. You know what would be a funny use of the data? Take data from all the gun control groups about their “grading” of gun laws and cross reference it against murder rates of their cities.

  8. Such large numbers of Young men murdering each other, is a modren problem, that was created by the Libertarians, Liberals, the Left, the [email protected], the atheists, the [email protected], and the fem!n!sts.
    Because they all disagreed with a Christians when the Christians said a father is necessary in the home. They when supported removing the father and replacing his love and discipline with a welfare check. And they supported replacing the father’s guns, with the guns of a big city police department.

    These people are comfortable with a single mother with five kids, from five different men, and never being married.

    So a certain demographic was created and allowed to grow, by people who believe that it’s better that the government raise the children. Instead of a two-parent, mother and father, traditional family.

    The rural areas of this country have similar problems. But because this particular demographic is located in the big cities. It’s was much easier for the government to interfere in the traditional family formation, in the big cities.

    If they were really interested in reducing crime particularly murder which they are not. These people would be against the Welfare Industrial Complex. But they would much rather have that. Than to have private religious based welfare. With all of its moral judgments, against Personal, and public anti-social Behavior.

    Large numbers of young men murdering people is not new to this country. This is exactly what happened after the end of the American Civil war. When you had millions of children who were left fatherless. Boys and young men, without the wisdom of a father, to guide them and keep them in check.

    • The founder of gunsight Colonel Jeff Cooper was absolutely correct.

      “The best way to solve violence in the major cities, is to make sure the residents there have guns. This way they can solve their own problems.”

      • I don’t think the Romans really cared what the Christians said. As they fed them to the lions. The ancient world was a terrible place and time.

    • And old joke from the Soviet Union. Dacian, look away now because you’ll be crying “hate speech”.

      School in USSR.
      Teacher: Who is your mother?
      Class: Mother Russia!
      Teacher: Who is your father?
      Class: Comrade Stalin!
      Teacher: What do you want to be when you leave school?
      Class: An orphan!

  9. Sounds like minds loaded with demoCrap might be a large part of the problem. I mean to be Black and belong to the party of your slave masters says in neon lights some people are not playing with a full deck.

    • But if your black and vote Republican your voting for the same people Whitey votes for, cant do that.
      Racism works,
      United we stand, Divided we fall

      • And the Democrats practice Division Politics. Not even 15 years ago most people didn’t care about race. If you could get an education and a decent job, you had a good chance of a good life.

        Now through diversity, CRT, supposed privilege, and calls for atonement and even active discrimination against a majority group we have division that will damage society. Pr0gressives have pushed this.

        When pushed too far the majority will push back. And push back hard. Unless Dacian has liquidated so many of the now majority that they are a melanine impoverished minority.

        • “Not even 15 years ago most people didn’t care about race“

          A hilarious assertion.

          “AUGUST 4, 2008
          Majority of Americans Say Racism Against Blacks Widespread
          More than three-quarters of blacks say racism against blacks is widespread

          BY JEFFREY M. JONES
          PRINCETON, NJ — A recent USA Today/Gallup poll finds most Americans saying racism is widespread against blacks in the United States. This includes a slim majority of whites (51%), a slightly higher 59% of Hispanics, and the vast majority of blacks (78%).“

          https://news.gallup.com/poll/109258/majority-americans-say-racism-against-blacks-widespread.aspx

          “REPORTDECEMBER 19, 2017
          Most Americans Say Trump’s Election Has Led to Worse Race Relations in the U.S.

          Growing share of public says there is too little focus on race issues
          Survey Report

          In 2008, voters were more optimistic about how Barack Obama’s election would affect race relations than they were after Trump’s victory. In November 2008, 52% said Obama’s election would lead to better race relations in the country.

          A year later, fewer Americans (36%) said race relations had improved, but just 13% said Obama’s election had made race relations worse. That was little changed from November 2008, when 9% of voters said Obama’s election would lead to worse race relations.”

          So who is responsible for the worst race relations we observe today?

          “Nearly a year into Donald Trump’s presidency, a majority of Americans (60%) say his election has led to worse race relations in the United States. Just 8% say Trump’s election has led to better race relations, while 30% say it has not made a difference.

          Shortly after Trump’s victory last year, voters had less negative expectations for how his election would affect race relations. In November 2016, nearly half (46%) said it would lead to worse race relations, while 25% expected his election to lead to improved race relations (another 26% expected little change).“

          https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2017/12/19/most-americans-say-trumps-election-has-led-to-worse-race-relations-in-the-u-s/

        • Southern Cross,
          In America, we had somewhat of a respite from political correctness in the late 90s and 2000s. I began to notice more claims of racism, which were always white on black, during Obama’s second term. That kept getting worse until the mask came off in 2020, and they finally got their cultural revolution. Wokeness is political correctness on steroids with an enforcement component.

          Now everything, and I mean EVERYTHING, is racist. And by racist, of course I mean white on black. The reverse is simply impossible, you see, because white people have ALL the power. I actually learned that from a highly privileged black lady speaking on a CNN panel sometime around 2014. This was when the single most powerful man in the world was a black man. I was shocked to see someone say that with a straight face. Now, of course, they’ve made that theory the norm. It’s amazing how many people buy into this poison.

  10. Shouldn’t it be pretty obvious that densely packed diversity results in turmoil?

    The only thing that calms the tumult is critical mass of one homogeneous group that can then overpower or control the other smaller groups.

    People love to call out corporate agriculture for packing in livestock but they sure love packing themselves in just as tightly. Then they sprinkle in a bunch of halfway houses, drug treatment centers and self-segregating, anti-assimilation migrants for flavor.

    We’re surprised with the result?

  11. Dont know about you all, but this looks like simple common sense to me. Any one with any degree of critical thinking could of drawn this conclusion.
    But it is nice to see Lott crunch the numbers.
    Cities with strict gun control laws, but Soros soft on crime backed DAs, defund the police movement, no cash bail, all factors contributing to higher crime and gun related shootings.

    • I’m not surprised. He was obviously a punk. A harsher sentence would have kept him alive longer. Libs think they’re compassionate, and pat themselves on the back while they’re destroying lives.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here