General Mackevili wrote: ↑Sun Jun 19, 2022 8:53 am I've never even heard of American Renaissance. I hate censorship, and with that comes the downside of hearing opinions that might be shitty.

Someone mentioned that Southern Poverty Law Center says that they're a hate group (and they might be, but again, I've never heard of it), and others say SPLC is a total scam. Who to believe? Meh, they might both be total trash.

I mentioned the SPLC. The SPLC is is the longest running monitor of hate groups in the US and was instrumental in forcing through the desegregation of public spaces in Alabama following the dismantling of "Jim Crow" legislation in the South.

As highlighted in the articles you reference however, it has unfortunately become a victim of the self flagellation that has swept through liberal organisations in the past decade.

This should not though cast any doubt on the racist and bigoted ideology of American Renaissance promoted through the psuedo-science and the guise of "race realism". According to the Library of Congress website,

American Renaissance (AR or AmRen) is a monthly online magazine published by the New Century Foundation which describes itself as a 'race-realist, white advocacy organization'. It has been described as a white supremacist publication by several sources, including The Washington Post, Fortune, and the Anti-Defamation League." -- Summary retrieved on October 7, 2019 http://dbpedia.org/resource/American_Re ... (magazine)."

https://www.loc.gov/item/lcwaN0017944/

So the Washington post, who you linked to regarding the recent controversies of the SPLC agrees with its catagorization of American Renaissance.

Good to understand institutional bias but it doesn't mean the information itself is inaccurate and throwing shade on their assessment of American Renaissance in this context is disingenuous.

I have not called for and do not agree with censorship, I merely pointed out the dubious source of the chart which was (in my opinion) deliberately posted within quotes from a seperate article to infer a link between race and crime. The actual reuters article in question makes no such claim and instead highlights the link between poverty and crime. As I mentioned in a previous post correllation does not equal causation but that won't stop a racist claiming that it does.

Big Daikon wrote: ↑Mon Jun 20, 2022 9:07 am Back on topic:

Who is it this week ?? White Nationalist ?? Neo Nazi ?? Christian Fundamentalist ?? Amish ??

Well, no matter the race or gender of the perpetrator there is no excuse for wanton violence ... am I right guys ??

*crickets*

Big Daikon wrote: ↑Sun Jun 19, 2022 8:34 am 3. We can't be scared of data just because they are uncomfortable and go against our ideologies. That is very dangerous thinking and can have serious consequences to a society.
4. This "Shoot the messenger" thinking is also dangerous. Are the data wrong or inaccurate?

CaptainCanuck wrote: ↑Sun Jun 19, 2022 7:29 am Bravo .... When you disagree with someone, instead of simply debunking their statements (and the corroborating CDC statistics) in a civil debate of the facts .... you demand the authorities silence them....

Right then, let's address the data!

Apologies, for being off-topic for a certain degree but as the original post remains I hope that this rebuttal will be allowed the same latitude. It will also be a fairly long post I'm afraid.

First up it would have been helpful if the original "article" in which this chart had been posted was honestly linked but there are obvious reasons why someone would not want to link directly to American Renaissance. It would have saved me from having to scroll through the bile of their website to find it. For anyone interested it can be found here: www(dot)amren(dot)com(slash)videos(slash)2022(slash)06(slash)we-dont-have-a-gun-problem-we-have-a-race-problem. I have decided to deliberately obscure the address so as not to promote the "article".

The CDC data is accurate, it is generated from publicly available data sets from the CDC Wonder web portal - https://wonder.cdc.gov/controller/datar ... DCB9294D5B. However, it is selectively generated to tell only one part of the story, the same data when aggregated by other factors implies a much more nuanced story. As the CDC report of the data points out;

Vital Signs: Changes in Firearm Homicide and Suicide Rates — United States, 2019–2020

Economic conditions in communities contribute to risk for violence, including firearm-related violence, and related racial and ethnic inequities (2). For example, multiple indicators (e.g., income inequality, unemployment, and housing and economic instability) are associated with risk for homicide and suicide (3–5)

This study examined changes in firearm homicide and firearm suicide rates coinciding with the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, in conjunction with existing and potentially widening inequities by race and ethnicity and poverty level.

It is true that firearm deaths were highest amongst ethnic minority groups. But the conclusion that this is down to some sort of innate disparity in levels of violence between ethnic groups is just ignorant bullshit. The study goes on to say;

County-wide poverty conditions varied by race and ethnicity (Table 3). As of 2020, approximately 24% of the U.S. population overall resided in counties classified as the most impoverished, however, approximately 29% of the Hispanic population, 39% of the Black population, and 44% of the AI/AN population resided in these counties. Firearm homicide rates were lowest and increased least at the lowest poverty level (from 2.0 to 2.4 per 100,000 persons) and were higher and showed larger increases at higher poverty levels (e.g., from 7.7 to 10.8 at the highest level). By race and ethnicity, rates were highest and increased most among Black persons at the two highest poverty levels. Associations between poverty and firearm suicide are also evident (Table 4). Yearly rates were lowest at the lowest poverty level and highest at the highest poverty level for the U.S. population overall and among Hispanic, Black, and White persons. The largest rate increases occurred among AI/AN persons at the two highest poverty levels.

It states clearly;

The findings of this study do not support causal inferences,

One such causal inferance would be, "duh, guns don't kill people, black people do".

and reasons for increasing rates and widening inequities are unclear and potentially complex. Several explanations have been proposed, including increased stressors (e.g., economic, social, and psychological) and disruptions in health, social, and emergency services during the COVID-19 pandemic; strains in law enforcement-community relations reflected in protests over law enforcement use of lethal force; increases in firearm purchases; and intimate partner violence (7–10). The COVID-19 pandemic might have exacerbated existing social and economic stressors that increase risk for homicide and suicide, particularly among certain racial and ethnic communities (2). Longstanding systemic inequities and structural racism (11) have resulted in limited economic, housing, and educational opportunities associated with inequities in risk for violence and other health conditions among various racial and ethnic groups.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/ ... _w#T1_down

A second chart was posted from the same American Renaissance "article":



This chart was according to the AmRen author;

put together by a very smart guy, Dr. John Robertson, III,

Funnily enough, I could find no public information about this "very smary guy" and no public linking to the chart outside the circle jerk of white supremacist organisations promoting the "article". If you have any evidence this guy even exists I would be happy to correct the record. Most references I found were for a cosmetic surgeon in Tomah, Wisconsin. But he doesn't look like the sort of guy white supremacists would be promoting, lol.



The data in the chart appears to be produced by combining two data sources 1. “Homicide Country Data,” United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. (https://dataunodc.un.org/content/homicide-country-data) and a second slightly obscure June 2018 briefing paper for the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade produced by the Small Arms Survey called - Estimating Global Civilian-held Firearms Numbers (https://smallarmssurvey.org/sites/defau ... umbers.pdf).

This SAS briefing paper is firstly an estimate and the methodology used to reach the estimates are in some cases pretty unreliable, the four sources listed are;

• (a) national firearms registration statistics;

• (b) general population surveys about firearm ownership (available for 56 countries/territories);

• (c) experts’ estimates of civilian holdings; and,

• (d) where none of these was available, analogous comparisons based on estimates for comparable countries.

Indeed, the authors themselves note;

For most locations there were multiple sources generating a wide range of estimates

In the notes at the end of the paper they warn;

Estimation will remain an essential element of civilian firearms data, but all estimates must be used with respect for their limitations. Even the most useful estimates must often trade precision for honesty about data and methods, relying on procedures that consider alternatives and acknowledge the truths that lie between the highs and lows (Kent, 1964). With much of civilian ownership concealed or hard to identify, gun ownership numbers can only approximate reality or reveal only part of it. They should therefore always be used with caution..”

The "article" in American Renaissance is a textbook example of "confirmation bias" being employed to give credence to a "logical fallacy".

The CDC data in no way proves that gun violence driven by innate disparity in levels of violence between different ethnic groups. And the "very smart guy['s]" chart is a joke of using an obscure (estimated) data set to infer causation from a completely unproved correlation.

Jared Taylor, (the author) uses pseudo academic ideas and language to take advantage of the ignorance of disaffected, angry, white people for his own ends. People without the time and energy to think critically about a complex issue are given comfort by simple solutions, which he is all too happy to provide. High gun violence in ethnic minority communities? Create a white ethnostate. It's pathetic and does not address or even accept the complex history of the treatment of minorities in America and the structural factors at play in 21st century poverty, marginalisation, and violence.

*Old aristocratic English man voice*

"And then we took the cane out of the cupboard and gave them a damn good thrashing."

There’s an elephant in the room, and there are at least two (2) bigots/racists who make sure the issue at hand is ignored.

This issue isn’t about race/ethnicity/gender, it’s about individuals being aloud to have weapons who shouldn’t have been aloud to, nothing more, nothing less. Any other discussion is just a distraction from the real problem.

If they want to have a discussion proclaiming their white superiority, they should start their own thread about it instead of hijacking one about 19 children and 2 adults being killed in a mass shooting.

It’s against the law to commit murder. It’s against the law to commit mass murder. It’s against the law to bring firearms to a school. Clearly, mass murders don’t care about the law.

Shall we pass more laws for them to blatantly ignore?

At what point to we give up all our personal liberties and depend on the government entirely to protect us? As well as tell us what to think or speak?

As for white supremacy, abortion was introduced and promoted among the black population as a form of population control. Gun control was first introduced in New York City to suppress the blacks as well. How things have changed. Chains have become cherished causes.

These are my thoughts and mine alone.

nkotb: there are several contributing factors to mass shootings. Mental health, availability of weapons, upbringing, no conflict resolution tutoring, cultural influences such as video games, violent films, macho expectations, desire to be famous, etc. (in no particular order)

Denial of any factor, but especially the fact that the easy availability of weapons is a factor, is, imo, a hallmark of people with a very specific agenda, namely sell as many guns as possible and screw the consequences.

Stricter licensing laws, INCLUDING gun shows.