“The school is described as a “gun free zone” and has only one unarmed security guard, who carries mace.
The shooter was taken out by two local police officers who raced to the scene.” Fox News
The school was a gun free zone? But, how could this shooting have happened? The shooter wasn’t allowed to have a gun on campus!!! He broke the law! I guess the unarmed security guard was not a deterrence either. Wow…what a revelation, shooter wasn’t scared by gun free zone and an unarmed security guard…can you imagine that?
I wonder what they would propose if they could turn the clock back and try it again? Think they might have insisted an armed guard be on campus? Pretty much a given now after 9 students and teacher were shot. Do you think they might allow some of their teachers with concealed carry permits to carry their guns on campus? The answer is pretty obvious to me, what do you think?
Okay, if its so obvious now after the killings, why is it that they couldn’t see it coming and taken real measures to stop an armed attacker? Denial that something bad like this could happen or hoping it wouldn’t is not a plan and it sure isn’t a substitute for common sense. Liberals disarmed all the good people on this campus – don’t they deserve to take some of the blame? I think they do…they deserve a lot more blame than the NRA, that’s for damned sure!
Jack, this is one of those arguments that sound rational in theory, but has no real evidence to support it. There is no evidence that shooters choose their targets based on whether or not they are “gun free zones.” Nor is there evidence that civilians with guns typically do a very good job stopping madmen with guns.
I have no opinion on whether or not colleges should allow armed guards or armed citizens–I think that should be up to each individual school. But it is not clear that this could have been avoided if the policy had been different, and it certainly isn’t clear that an armed school is a safer school.
Re : “Jack, this is one of those arguments that sound rational in theory, but has no real evidence to support it. There is no evidence that shooters choose their targets based on whether or not they are “gun free zones.” Nor is there evidence that civilians with guns typically do a very good job stopping madmen with guns.”
Brilliant non-sequitur and display of ignorance. I see that Jack decided not to reply to this nonsense.
Where in the above was Jack arguing that shooters specifically pick gun “free zones” to commit their horrendous crimes. Some may, some may not.
As for the statement, “Nor is there evidence that civilians with guns typically do a very good job stopping madmen with guns.” That is born of a bold, profound, and abiding deep seated ignorance. There is plenty of evidence in news stories every day, for crying out loud. I would say, check with the NRA, but that would only invite ridicule from one as ignorant as Chris. Chris might try reading — “More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws, Third Edition” http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493660/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1444508448&sr=8-1&keywords=more+guns+less+crime — but he is so close-minded that he would probably attack the author and the book.
Re: “But it is not clear that this could have been avoided if the policy had been different, and it certainly isn’t clear that an armed school is a safer school.” Jee whiz, the non-sequiturs abound! WHAT??? Who is arguing that this could be avoided??? What Jack is saying is that with trained armed persons on the school grounds, the shooter may well have been stopped, or at least stopped before so many fell before his carnage!
Chris, I think you are one cold-hearted, close-minded sob who lives just to argue, no matter how outside the point, off base, and ignorant the argument is.
Jack, on the other hand, only seeks to save precious lives from the hands of cruel madmen. I think he makes some excellent points that you, for whatever unfathomable reason, find fit to counter in your usual faux erudite style, starting with assertions that were not even made by Jack in his blog post.
The community college district I retired from in the bay area in 2003 had two campuses with multiple satellites around the county. Our total student population varied from 30,000-40,000 with a full and part-time staff of approximately 2,000.
We had a full police force with a police chief.who carried guns and covered all locations 24/7. Some of them were employed with other local city police depts. or had retired from one. They patrolled the campuses in uniform and full gear. In over 25 years I only saw them once have to take down an unruly student who thought his 5’7″ and 140 self could beat a 6’4″ 250 lb. armed cop. The cop put his hand on the guys forehead while the kid swung away. It really was funny. It was when the kid kicked the cop in the knee when the kid learned his lesson.
When I got off at 10pm at night an officer was there to escort me and my coworkers to our cars.
I just did a search of both campus’s catalogs and found no notation that they were “gun free zones.” And the crime report listed a couple of minor crimes like theft, but nothing major.
Correction to your above story. The Oregon shooter took his own life. He wasn’t killed by the cops who arrived on campus from the police station down the road.
I try not to go into gun free zones since they have become areas of opportunity for nutjobs with weapons. And I let those same businesses know why I won’t be supporting them.
Ben Carson is right. Ultimately it’s YOU who are responsible for your safety. Don’t stand still and wait to be a “target of opportunity.”
And you really wanna live in a world like that?
I wanna live in a world where the army, seeing it had a problem with the young man, rather than cut him loose (so’s he could wreak havoc on the rest of us), sent him to “group” … gave him a good year in group. And then, if he had still to be cut loose, they should be obliged to say exactly why, so us poor civilians know what we’re up against.
Troubled young men need lots and lots of “group” … not a personal arsenal.
FOX News reports on a study by the Crime Prevention Research Center:
There are cases where armed citizens have stopped or minimized mass murders. They don’t make the news as dramatically. Some have been chronicled, see here. More here.
Wouldn’t the typical liberal thought regarding concealed carry on campus be, “If we can stop just one child from being harmed it would be worth it?”
It’s apparently true that those who claim that “80 percent to 90 percent of Americans are in favor of expanded background-checks legislation” get their statistics from generic polls asking a question like, “Do you want to stop criminals from obtaining guns.”
One of the things that makes this issue frustrating to me is we will never stop all of these incidents. Yet they are always politically exploited as if adding another law would have the power to stop them.
We have strict laws against murder but we sure don’t enforce them through sentencing practices. Maybe that’s part of the problem.
Tina: “Wouldn’t the typical liberal thought regarding concealed carry on campus be, “If we can stop just one child from being harmed it would be worth it?””
Sure, but that assumes that children are at less risk from accidents that could occur via law-abiding citizens practicing concealed carry than they are from the possibility of a mass murder. I don’t have stats on that, but I’d guess the latter is less common than the former.
I’m not opposed to concealed carry at all, but again, I think individual areas have the right to make their own regulations on this. (I also am in favor of all states legalizing concealed carry. Surprised?)
“It’s apparently true that those who claim that “80 percent to 90 percent of Americans are in favor of expanded background-checks legislation” get their statistics from generic polls asking a question like, “Do you want to stop criminals from obtaining guns.””
No, that’s not even remotely true. Many polls which have asked specifically about expanding background check laws found the exact same results. Even Fox News ran such a poll and got around 90%. These polls are very easy to find. I didn’t read the Human Events article, but if that’s what they’re claiming, they didn’t look very far.
OK, I read the Human Events article, and I’m unsurprised that they relied on John Lott for the claim that the poll questions weren’t specific enough.
As a counterpoint, see this Fox News poll, in which 85% of respondents said they were in favor of “Requiring criminal background checks on all gun buyers, including those buying at gun shows and private sales.” That’s a heck of a lot more specific than Lott and Human Events claimed.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2013/03/22/fox-news-poll-support-for-gun-control-measures/
Interesting poll that generally seems to support your opinion.
On the initial question only 26% favored stricter gun control laws for everyone as the solution to reducing “gun violence.”
24% thought better mental health was the way to reduce gun violence.
37% thought better parenting was the answer.
The last two taken together add up to 61% that would choose something other than stricter gun control laws. This makes the other statistics in the poll odd, in my estimation, but then I imagine many of the respondents know very little about the subject.
Those who support expanding background checks are assuming that a law making it more difficult for law abiding citizens would prevent determined killers from acquiring weapons. This is absurd.
A good point is made in an article here:
Jack has said this many times. Stricter gun laws would not stop this from happening.
Also as other have said, Timothy McVeigh did the jib without guns.
Why do liberals always want more laws? It’s as if they think think they can build a risk-less, perfect society which is childish.
We have laws against committing murder. If that isn’t stopping murders from happening why do you think more gun laws would?
I forgot to add one more stat from your FOX poll: 51% favored putting armed guards in schools for protection.
Tina: “The last two taken together add up to 61% that would choose something other than stricter gun control laws. This makes the other statistics in the poll odd, in my estimation, but then I imagine many of the respondents know very little about the subject.”
It’s not really that odd. Specific questions almost always yield different results than vague questions. Simply asking “Do you favor stricter gun control laws?” isn’t very useful–that’s a politically charged question, and lots of people are going to automatically say yes or not without thinking, based solely on their party affiliation. Asking about which specific gun control laws people would support yields much more reliable results.
“Those who support expanding background checks are assuming that a law making it more difficult for law abiding citizens would prevent determined killers from acquiring weapons. This is absurd.”
We’ve been through this before. Criminals are getting guns from gun shows–requiring background checks at gun shows would make it at least a little more difficult for them to get guns. The Columbine shooters got their guns from a gun show. The straw buyer has said she did not know their intentions but would not have bought for them if she had had to go through a background check.
Closing the gun show loophole is necessary to ensure that our current gun laws are enforced. It’s always illegal for a felon to buy a gun, but if I’m a seller at a gun show, how do I know if you’re committing a crime if I don’t run a background check? And I can sell to any felon without consequence to myself since I’m under no obligation to run a background check. It’s not right.
Chris: “We’ve been through this before. Criminals are getting guns from gun shows…”
Condescension notwithstanding, your claim is basically false. As the article I cited indicates:
Tina: “The last data suggests that a fraction of one percent of those who commit a gun related crime will legally purchase a gun and then commit a crime with it…”
I don’t have time to go back to the original data, but as it’s phrased here, it doesn’t seem to contradict the problems with the gun show loophole at all. It is of course illegal for a felon to buy from a gun show. It is NOT illegal in most states for someone to SELL to a felon at a gun show.* See the problem?
*It’s illegal to knowingly sell to a felon, but the gun show loophole essentially creates a “see no evil” excuse where any seller can just say they didn’t know any better.
A 1999 investigation by the ATF found rampant abuse of the loophole at gun shows.
http://www.businessinsider.com/study-data-gun-show-loophole-felons-buy-guns-2013-1
Unfortunately there isn’t more recent data available–likely because Republicans have gutted the ATF in the decade and change since.
Chris, you said”Jack, this is one of those arguments that sound rational in theory, but has no real evidence to support it. There is no evidence that shooters choose their targets based on whether or not they are “gun free zones.” Nor is there evidence that civilians with guns typically do a very good job stopping madmen with guns.”
I wasn’t saying that shooters choose their targets based on whether or not they are “gun free zones,” although I suspect they do. I was proposing that if there were people armed on the campus they might have killed the SOB before he killed 8 people or if one of the 8 had been armed they would have stood a better chance of survival.
Common sense says if you are determined to kill as many people as possible, you would attack where there are lots of unarmed people. I bet that’s why this guy attacked unarmed students instead of the police station.
Jack: “was proposing that if there were people armed on the campus they might have killed the SOB before he killed 8 people or if one of the 8 had been armed they would have stood a better chance of survival”
Or they could have gotten more people killed. We don’t know. We also don’t know if any of those eight would even have chosen to be armed on campus if they could have been, so the idea that gun-free zones are stopping people who would otherwise be packing heat is baseless; very few people actually practice concealed carry even when it’s allowed.
“Common sense says if you are determined to kill as many people as possible, you would attack where there are lots of unarmed people. I bet that’s why this guy attacked unarmed students instead of the police station.”
Your mistake is assuming mass shooters have common sense. They are by definition irrational. Didn’t this guy kill himself? Wouldn’t that go against the idea that he chose this target partially due to less risk of being killed himself?
Lots of mass killers have left manifestos. Have any of them ever said that they chose a target because it was a gun free zone?
Chris your mistake is in thinking that irrational people cannot be calculating. I think we could all agree that the murderers in these cases have all been crazy in one way or another but clearly all of them planned and prepared to do what they did.
Yes, and many of them planned on dying.
The position that we must have another gun law, rather than an armed guard/citizen to prevent this from happening is a victims position. You can call it a straw man argument but it doesn’t change the fact that if you got your way and then found yourself in a room where this happened, the only thing you could count on is a law you favored that didn’t stop the shooter. An armed person in the room would give you better odds.
The civilian with a carry permit in Arizona proves the point that people who carry weapons are trained and in most cases will assess the situation.
People who are against carry laws can assume out of control firing…mayhem. In most cases people who carry are well aware of the responsibilities involved.
As far as I know, the tackle in Arizona was, in that instance, a good call but only because the civilian was close enough to tackle the shooter. That isn’t always the case.
“The man was a hero, but had he drawn his gun the situation could have turned out even worse.”
Or maybe not. Guessing and speculation are pretty meaningless after the fact. There’s no way to second guess any situation with accuracy.
“Yes, and many of them planned on dying.”
Which has absolutely nothing to do with their ability to plan, carry out their plans even if they were crazy. So what’s the point of this retort?
“Which has absolutely nothing to do with their ability to plan, carry out their plans even if they were crazy. So what’s the point of this retort?”
The point is that this hurts the chances that they chose a certain area because it was a no gun zone.
Jack the problem for Chris is that his victim mentality drives his position. His basic assumption is that we are all victims and the only “weapon” we have available to us is another law on the books.
As a trained officer you know very well that his imagined scenario, that an armed person/s at these schools could result in more people being killed, is absurd. No school would just shove a gun in someone’s hand and tell them they were in charge of defending against armed killers. They would hire someone/s with training and experience.
I heard this morning that Jews in Israel are being randomly murdered with screw drivers. Anyone who is determined to commit this heinous crime will not be deterred by words on a page!
Tina: “His basic assumption is that we are all victims and the only “weapon” we have available to us is another law on the books.”
No, but I appreciate the way you handcraft your strawmen so that each one is creative and unique. You should sell them on Etsy.
“As a trained officer you know very well that his imagined scenario, that an armed person/s at these schools could result in more people being killed, is absurd.”
How is it absurd? The civilian who stopped Gabby Giffords’ shooter in Tucson has said he nearly shot the wrong man. He also said that he didn’t draw his weapon because he didn’t want to be mistaken for a second shooter. In the end, he didn’t use his gun on the shooter at all, and instead tackled him.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/41018893/ns/slate_com/t/armed-giffords-hero-nearly-shot-wrong-man/#.VhcdavlViko
The man was a hero, but had he drawn his gun the situation could have turned out even worse. Again, we don’t know. Conservatives acting as if more armed citizens is a guarantee of safety are no less silly than liberals acting as if less armed citizens are a guarantee of safety.
“No school would just shove a gun in someone’s hand and tell them they were in charge of defending against armed killers. They would hire someone/s with training and experience.”
Nice non-sequiter, but that’s not what Jack said:
“I was proposing that if there were people armed on the campus…”
This would seem to encompass civilians on the college campus, not just trained guards. Conservatives have also supported teachers bringing guns to campus, despite the many embarassing stories of teachers accidentally shooting themselves on the job when some states started allowing this…if you’re now saying that only trained and experienced guards should carry then that’s a very different argument.
Really good article. A little long, but worth the read.
How We All Miss the Point on School Shootings:
“In 1998, a high school junior named Eric Harris from Colorado wanted to put on a performance, something for the world to remember him by. A little more than a year later, Eric and his best friend Dylan Klebold would place bombs all over their school — bombs large enough to collapse large chunks of the building and to kill the majority of the 2,000 students inside — and then wait outside with semi-automatic weapons to gun down any survivors before ending their own lives.
“It’ll be like the LA riots, the Oklahoma bombing, WWII, Vietnam, Duke and Doom all mixed together,” Eric wrote in his journal. “Maybe we will even start a little rebellion or revolution to fuck things up as much as we can. I want to leave a lasting impression on the world.”
Eric was a psychopath, but he was also smart.
Despite what media outlets would later claim, Eric Harris was not the victim of bullying any more than other students, he was not a goth or a member of the “Trench Coat Mafia.” Eric was a straight-A student. He read Nietzsche and Hemingway for fun. He had friends and girlfriends. He was charming and funny and had a disarming smile.
But Eric also understood people. And because he understood people, he changed everything.”
Continued…
http://markmanson.net/school-shootings
No welcome mat for Obama in Roseburg, OR.
Update: 5,900 Sign Up to Protest Obama’s Visit to Roseburg, Oregon:
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/10/roseburg-or-residents-organize-protest-against-obamas-visit-defend-roseburg-deny-barack-obama/
Hopefully the next mass killer was prevented in Florida. See something, say something.
High School Student’s Ominous Tweet Sparks Investigation. What Police Soon Uncovered on His Phone Is Horrifying.:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/10/07/high-school-students-ominous-tweet-sparks-investigation-what-police-soon-uncovered-on-his-phone-is-horrifying/
Thanks for the story Peggy!
This Fl kid needs to be to be committed…probably his parents too.
The ever so polite yet ineffectual notion from the Anti-gun group that gun controls are needed from the left.
Using selectively picked and less than complete information (sounds a lot like” if you like your doctor”) to once more over regulate law abiding gun owners, when the problem is people with criminal intent, and access to illegally obtained weapons causing the problems.
The objective of chipping away at the 2nd amendment is a liberal intention that targets legal gun owners, and is reoccurring every time a incident like this happens because they resist the necessity of real answers that could make a difference. Common sense and even studies suggest that a better armed location is not the preferred target of killers such as the school shooters.
You cant make every location in America safe, murders will find a way to creat the madia attention they seek.
Possibly a place to start is with the “1st Amendment” and limiting the Media(lets see how that plays out) in how they can report the history background of the cowards causing the incidents, those cowards want the attention, and the media gives them the notoriety they seek. Right now I do believe the Media, who “over glorify” by reporting everything the murderers do and have done up to the killing and murders is the major contributing factor in all of the past shootings, and will foster those killings that are yet to come.
If anyone thinks guns are the real cause, they have their heads in the sand, guns are tools, and even if taken away, other tools will replace them, most likely home made IED’s placed where ever on the grounds not protected that takes out more than the killer can one at a time.
The issue is not guns, it is how and why these people do this, fed by media attention.
Right now in America, and World wide, with so much hate spawned because of, and within our system toward our founding beliefs, and the lack of present leadership that supports the positives of America, congress will only do what they do best ,which is always any knee-jerk reaction toward the most political object to try and look like their doing something.
When in fact Congress and most elected just circumvent the problem, by creating a scapegoat icon and cause more boondock bureaucracy with overregulating laws that never solve the problem!
I am sure the Left will have new Bills introduced in congress before the suns sets on these headlines, after all what is important to them is there is a election years just ahead.
Amen Harold! You said it all.
“The issue is not guns, it is how and why these people do this, fed by media attention.”
Harold, I don’t think that the obscene accessibility to guns in this country can be taken out of the issue. All the nations of the world have more or less the same proportion of disturbed young men in their populations. We are the only one having near weekly mass casualty events.
You can still have your gun shows. We know how much you enjoy gathering together to display your knowledge and proficiency, and generally out-rooster each other. But there can be no more driving off with a trunk full of weaponry. All purchases will be subject to a 28-day waiting period and a thorough background check.
The Aussies are every bit as ruggedly studly as we are, and they learned to deal with it. You can too.
Libby, Talk about out rooster-ing , What a hen house cluck you are about what takes place anywhere at anytime regarding law abiding gun purchases at gun shows.
Your just pecking away at liberal fodder designed to misinform and feed a mindset of more Government control of less effect solutions to anything they weigh in on, and only to gather votes.
If I recall your own Senator Yee has more to do with the distribution of ILLEGAL weapons than any Gun show or Gun store, exception being the one Obama and Holder during their fast and furious blunder , AKA used to track (LOL) and distribute weapons to Mexico cartel members.
Libby you brought up the Aussie way of gun control, in light of the fact someone was killed, who did they stop from legal law abiding gun ownership, and now who had the guns….Criminals, same as in the US shootings.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/02/world/australia-shooting/index.html
Liberal Idealism just doesn’t work with people intent on inflecting harm, but fear of a armed response has reduced many killing in US cites where CCW and/or open carry is encouraged. Yes shooting still happen, so do drunk drivers and the sale of hammers, but we seem to understand outlawing either cars or carpentry tools is not going to solve the problem.
And anyone with a good understanding of Government knows the next step in reducing our freedoms is just a incident away from reality.
Libby…always ordering people around.
What do you want to bet that the very high numbers of black on black murders committed in Chicago and other large cities, which drive our murder rate up, are committed with guns not purchased legally or at gun shows?
In 2007 CBS reported stats from the Department of Justice. At that time nearly half of murder victims in the US were young black men:
I don’t think this problem has improved since then either.
So the problem, once again, isn’t to be found at gun shows. The problem is societal, epidemic, and remains totally unaddressed!
If black lives matter why does the left only do their gun control dance when a school shooting takes place? Young black man are killing each other by the hundreds on a week by week basis and none of it elicits a similar political outcry!
You people are such phonies!
“If I recall your own Senator Yee has more to do with the distribution of ILLEGAL weapons ….”
What has this got to do with anything we are discussing? You can take these highly partisan non sequiturs and stuff them. This is why people won’t talk to you, you know; you can’t stick to the subject … especially when you might be getting to be intellectually cornered.
You snatch at Senator Yee; Tina goes hareing off after the black people … what IS this?
What IS this?
A response to your insistence that America has more problems than other nations because of our inadequate gun laws!!! If you don’t want an ear full don’t bring it up.
Obama didn’t wait an hour before he stood before the cameras and, after giving the expected sympathetic response, launched into a gun law tirade. Yet in eight years he has not addressed the “gun” problem in Chicago even once. In terms of our nations murder rate black on black murder rates affect the our standing significantly yet his ficus is on school shooting that happen less often with fewer victims.
City of St pictruLouis:
Chicago:
Chicago has very strict gun laws.
Also, statistics are gathered differently in different nations making comparisons nearly impossible.
Telegraph:
If three people are murdered in one event in some of these countries it is counted as one murder. they count by event rather than individual deaths.
The “America is violent because we have guns” is just another radical left talking point.
Tina: “Yet in eight years he has not addressed the “gun” problem in Chicago even once.”
It’s one thing to argue that Obama hasn’t addressed gun violence in Chicago enough; that’s a matter of opinion.
It’s quite another to argue Obama has not addressed it even once. That’s just factually untrue, and you can easily find several examples of Obama speaking about this problem with a simple Google search.
Chris you’re right and I’m wrong. Obama has addressed gun violence in Chicago…his message, however was not the same, at least in one instance.
“Obama’s Chicago Speech On Gun Violence Tells Blacks A Skewed Story,” by Michael Arceneaux:
Contrast that with his remarks following the Roseburg murders:
What? No holes in the hearts of killers in Roseburg?
His remarks in both cases were political and in neither case did they go over well.
The President also spoke with inaccurate information regarding gun laws and crime in other countries and ours.
A simple google search might have informed him better.
He sure seems to love hating (white priviledged) America.
Thanks for clarifying, Tina.
I think it makes sense for Obama to talk about mass shootings in a different way than he talks about gang or crime-involved shootings like those that happen in Chicago and other urban areas. They have different causes. Kids who shoot up schools or army rejects who go on a rampage are killing for very different reasons than your average Chicago gang banger. The root causes are different, and thus so should the solutions be. It should also be noted that Obama did support tighter gun control measures in Chicago…whether those improved conditions is up for debate. (I think it’s more helpful to compare states with states; the city level is too small for a valid comparison, and major urban centers always have high crime rates.)
His speech about Chicago violence seems very similar to things you have said yourself. Would you prefer if he took this tone when discussing mass shootings as well?
Libby snipes:”I don’t think that the obscene accessibility to guns in this country can be taken out of the issue” then follows with “But there can be no more driving off with a trunk full of weaponry” her comments sound like a nervous hen clucking , but that’s all she is good at, clucking and pecking, and creating liberal fertilizer.
“What is this”, well what it isn’t is a “non sequitur “, it is factual information to your “misinformation” about trunk loads, if you don’t like the taste of your own words , then don’t cluck so much misinformation.
As to “stuff them” well it seems your “Liberal misdirection material” just got stuffed in your own hollowed out space, and all on your own .
“He sure seems to love hating (white priviledged) America.”
Can you even explain white privilege?
Can I explain white privilege?
Sure, it is a term created by radical activists looking to exploit the social and economic circumstances of both whites and people of color for monetary gain. Redistribution is the goal.
White people in America fought and died to achieve freedom from oppression and that freedom gave them tremendous opportunity to make personal strides. Our nation is unique in all the world in that respect. As was the case with every other race, white Americans owned slaves. But we also created founding documents that, through the power of words, set the stage for slavery to end. (The documents clearly stated: all men are free, created equal by a higher power) We bled and died to free the slaves and then we spent decades struggling, changing the law, and making amends to make their free and equal status a reality.
The whole idea of “white privilege” offends me deeply. It implies whites have never been poor or enslaved. It implies whites have never struggled against oppressors. It implies whites have not worked hard, educated themselves, or invented and achieved to make whatever gains they have made. It implies that whites live to oppress people of color when in fact those people have been oppressed by tyrants and opportunists of their own kind much more often. It implies that only whites have opportunity…our melting pot of successful people of all races puts the truth to that lie. And last but not least, it furthers the notion that people of color are perpetual victims, as if somehow their DNA is different from that of whites.
In short, white privilege is a political tool.
Tina, do you believe there was ever a time in the United States where whites, as a group, had more social advantages than other races, as a group?
If so, when do you believe whites stopped having those social advantages?
I believe group think is crap!
Group think does nothing but sustain racial division, resentment, victim-hood, and politically, the Marxist notion that wealth belongs to “the group”.
I believe people in earlier times in America achieved according to their abilities and willingness to face and overcome adversity and challenges and people of all races experienced social disadvantage. The divide between the wealthy and the poor was greater in earlier times when a few industrious men managed to achieve great things. In the last half of the last century the middle class grew by leaps and bounds across the racial spectrum and we witnessed the rise of very wealth people of all races.
I don’t believe there will EVER be a time when equality of outcomes and group acceptance happens simply because people of all races have within their populations people who achieve greatly, people who do well, and people who for whatever reason remain poor and unaccomplished. No amount of social engineering, redistribution, or protest will change that.
We would do better as a nation to celebrate and hold up as roll models and accomplishment people like these!
Instead we have made civil rights an industry and victim-hood a permanent state to be exploited and politicized…but only for races other than white. (As if there aren’t plenty of whites who are not socially advantaged)
Well, that didn’t answer my question at all. Wanna try again?
(Also–and I only say this because you’ve been misspelling this word for years, and I’ve said nothing–it’s “roles,” not “rolls.” A roll is a thing you eat or an action you take after stopping and dropping. A role is a part you play.)
Chris: “The root causes are different, and thus so should the solutions be. It should also be noted that Obama did support tighter gun control measures in Chicago…whether those improved conditions is up for debate. ”
Chris the root causes might be different on the surface but bad parenting, lousy home/media/neighborhood environment, poor roll models, and bad influences probably all contribute in both cases. Mental illness may be apparent in both in some cases. Deep dysfunction is absolutely evident in both and both involve guns.
School shootings are always exploited to advance gun control. The President pandered in Chicago wanting the people there to think he cares. He just politically exploited the two situation differently.
His remarks in Chicago are close to things I’ve said myself and I have acknowledged that. Farrakhan also says things I agree are right on the money. But I don’t think either of these men are sincere or authentic. They are interested in power to advance a hidden agenda.
People are getting tired of being politically bullied and pushed around by a radical few pushing for more government intervention and control. Laws that create more paperwork and bureaucracy but have very little effect are pointless. It’s impossible to create a risk free society. The exploitation of school tragedies for votes is a good example.
Two stories in the news today illustrate the point. One is directly related:
The Washington Times headline says it all: Obama greeted by protesters in Oregon — ‘Gun free zones are for sitting ducks,’ sign reads
The other story’s subject is coincidentally related but apropos:
NY Daily News:
Yes, Chris, “role” is a word my brain often unconsciously skips over when I misspell it as roll. Perfection isn’t always possible, in fact, I imagine one day even you will experience making such an error.
I did answer that “set up” question. Since it was based on a false premise my answer, quite naturally, doesn’t follow. But I do understand how you might not appreciate my answer.
How was it based on a false premise? I asked if there was ever a time when white people had more advantages than other races. Most people would be able to answer this with a clear-cut “yes,” because “yes” is obviously the answer.
“Where privilege” is just a way of saying these advantages still persist. You may disagree with that, but to say it’s a scam is ridiculous.
Chris: “I asked if there was ever a time when white people had more advantages than other races.”
Actually you asked about groups of people by race: “…do you believe there was ever a time in the United States where whites, as a group, had more social advantages than other races, as a group?
The false premise: Social advantage can be defined, or quantified, by race, i.e., “white privilege.”
Tina: “Actually you asked about groups of people by race: “…do you believe there was ever a time in the United States where whites, as a group, had more social advantages than other races, as a group?”
What exactly is the difference? Are you saying white people have never been a distinct social group in the United States?
“The false premise: Social advantage can be defined, or quantified, by race,”
Are you saying social advantages were never given to a certain race in this country? Ever? Do you understand that’s objectively false?
What I understand is that you have one, count em, one as in singular, context for history and it is race based and group oriented. As I explained in a previous comment that is a useless, divisive, inflammatory perspective and I want no part of it.
Go ahead and be exasperated, it’s okay by me. But don’t proceed under the delusion that talking down to me means you’ve cornered the market on truth, you still have a lot to learn.
I’ve never seen anyone more determined to refuse to answer a simple question. Why can’t you just say that white people used to have advantages relative to other races in this country, but don’t anymore? Isn’t that what you believe? Surely you don’t believe white people never have advantages relative to other races?
Ah, Harold, that was weak … very Pie-like, and not up to your usual at all.
Don’t dismiss it as a snipe, which it wasn’t. Pose an argument.
Our readers might find the following sources on black slave owners and poor whites in the Old South of interest:
Ironbark Resources
XRoads
Civil War News
Mississippi History Now”
Electric Scotland:
Africa Source:
The General Report
We cannot define people, or their circumstances in any historical period, by racial groups.
White privilege is a political term used by activists who support redistribution and seek power over others.
Better we work to support freedom and opportunity for everyone and stop the divisive activist terminology.
Tina: “Our readers might find the following sources on black slave owners and poor whites in the Old South of interest”
It’s interesting, but I’d be more interested in the conclusions you’re drawing from it. Namely, are you arguing that this proves that whites generally did not have social advantages over others generally during slavery?
“We cannot define people, or their circumstances in any historical period, by racial groups.”
“We” aren’t doing that; we’re recognizing the undeniable historical fact that people were divided into racial groups in our past, and were treated very differently according to those racial groups. Pretty much everyone recognizes that fact. You’ve shown recognition of that in the past; I don’t know what the heck you’re doing now.
“White privilege is a political term used by activists who support redistribution and seek power over others.”
If you won’t answer any of my other questions, I hope you’ll answer this one:
Did “white privilege” exist under slavery and Jim Crow laws?
Chris I reject the political term “white privilege” as I have already said.
Given that, your questions are useless and only serve to reveal your own refusal to accept my point of view. You keep trying to fit my point of view into your context…it cannot be done.
My position is consistent with the ideal in our founding documents that all people are created free and equal by a higher power (God). My efforts are toward that ideal:
Tonight I would add the following: “…stop the activist terminology and game playing.”
In order to understand “conclusions” I might have drawn from what I’ve posted you would have to set aside your race based, group oriented political position and understanding. You would have to open your mind to the possibility that there are other, more expansive ways of looking at and understanding history.
I’m pretty sure you aren’t ready to do that and so there is really nothing left to say.
“Chris I reject the political term “white privilege” as I have already said.”
Even when referring to the antebellum South? That’s just silly. No, I take that back–that’s crazy. No rational person could say that whites did not have privileges that blacks lacked prior to 1860 in the United States. No one would say that; you won’t even say it, though you’re certainly implying it. I just can’t figure out why.