crime and violence

Back in 1996, 35 people were gunned down in Tasmania. As a result of this tragedy, the Australian government instituted new gun-control laws. Among them was a compulsory buyback program. Since then there has been much debate over how this affected violent crime rates in Australia.

Gun rights advocates have, for the most part, been claiming that violent crime actually increased after the buyback. Anti-gun advocates argue that such claims are flawed, and that violent crime went down after the buyback. Each side accuses the other of using flawed, or meaningless, statistics.

If we are to address the issue of post buyback crime rates at all, the burden of proof must fall on the anti-gun crowd. Regardless of what the Australian Constitution says, or does not say, about gun ownership, people have a natural right to defend themselves. Our natural rights are not contingent upon any government-issued piece of paper. The right to defend oneself against violence is primal. Therefore, if we are to argue that the Australian government was justified in its theft of its citizens’ firearms, the burden of proof is on us to show that such a measure is necessary and effective.

But we cannot simply point to a decrease in violent crime and assume that it’s due to the buyback. Correlation does not equal causation. Similarly, we cannot assume that an increase in violent crime is due to the buyback. There are many, constantly changing, factors that influence crime rates. I would argue that the very complexity of the issue renders such claims (on either side) practically meaningless.

I would also argue that, even if it could be shown that gun confiscation does decrease violent crime, this still does not give people the right to steal guns from other people.

Consider the case of motorcycles. Why not make recreational motorcycle riding illegal? Such a law would certainly save lives; there’s no doubt about it. While it’s true that the person most at risk, with motorcycles, is the rider himself, the same could be said about guns. Suicide rates are much higher than homicide rates.

Most people understand that we must accept certain risks if our lives are to worth living at all. If it’s worth risking our lives for fun, how much more so for self-defense.

My brother just got back from a prolonged trip to Australia. He tells me that the Australians he spoke to were very pleased with their strict gun laws. There seems to be an assumption that living in Australia makes one an expert on Australian crime and gun laws. Thinking back on my own visit there, I don’t think this is the case. My impression is that many, if not most, Australians are heavily indoctrinated by their left-leaning government and press – the same as Americans and Europeans.

I recently overheard a conversation between two of my friends. They were talking about the recent shooting in Troutdale, Oregon. I’m familiar with Troutdale, since I often visit that area during the summer. It’s only about 45 minutes from my house. My friends were citing this incident as justification for gun-control. It’s funny because Troutdale was also the scene of a “wilding” a couple of years ago. Here’s a video of the incident:


… but I don’t remember calls for diversity-control after that. Perhaps this is because of selective reporting by the corporate-owned media. People hear about lone gunmen, but they’re less likely to hear about black mob violence. I would wager that the average American is much more likely to become a victim of black violence than he is to become a victim of a lone white gunman – but the powers that be, in order to serve their own political agenda, aggressively publicize white gunmen (even if they’re only part white) while ignoring black violence as much as possible.

Ethnic diversity leads to a degradation of our culture. Hence, even when the culprit is a white high school student, some of the blame can be laid at the feet of “diversity.” What we need is diversity-control, not gun-control.

Some people are just crazy; it doesn’t take much to provoke them into committing acts of violence. Most of us need a lot of provocation before we resort to bloodshed; everybody has his snapping point.

I don’t claim to know whether Frazier Glen Miller is a natural-born psychopath. Unlike the $PLC or the ADL, I don’t claim to be an expert. But, according to the Washington Post:

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a respected activist organization that tracks hate crimes and racist activities, said the man arrested and identified by police as Frazier Glenn Cross is actually Frazier Glenn Miller. Miller, the SPLC said, founded and ran the Carolina Klan before he was sued by the SPLC “for operating an illegal paramilitary organization and using intimidation tactics against African Americans.”

He later founded another Klan outfit, the White Patriot Party, which put him in violation of the terms that settled the suit brought by the SPLC. He was found in criminal contempt in 1986 and served six months in prison. He moved underground while out on bond and was caught in Missouri with other Klansmen with a reserve of weapons, the SPLC stated.

The next year, he pleaded guilty to a weapons charge. He was indicted for plotting to obtain stolen military weapons, and for planning robberies and the assassination of the SPLC founder Morris Dees. As part of a plea deal, he testified against other Klan leaders and received a five-year sentence. He served only three years, the SPLC stated.

Considering the history of black violence against whites, it’s absolutely necessary to defend ourselves against blacks. Firearms are a crucial component of any such defensive measures. There is nothing unreasonable or hateful about this; it’s a matter of survival – and this appears to be what Miller was doing (feel free to correct me if I’m wrong).

But this is not acceptable to organizations such as the $PLC. The “Southern Poverty Law Center” is an anti-white organization, and Miller was (at least in his own mind) a pro-white activist. The $PLC has a lot more money, and political power, than Miller – so it set about persecuting Miller. It would appear that Miller was hounded by this anti-white hate-group for years.

The “Southern Poverty Law Center” is largely Jewish. So is the ADL. Both organizations had caused Miller a lot of grief over the years, and now this bitter 70-year-old man chose to go out with a bang and take his revenge against “The Jooz.”

It’s a pity that Miller, his murderous mind now shrunken with age, didn’t focus his attention on the real culprits: The $PLC and the ADL. Had he eliminated some of them, we might owe him a debt of gratitude. Instead, he chose a soft target and murdered 3 innocent people.

Perhaps the victims’ survivors should sue the $PLC and the ADL for pushing Miller over the edge. The “Southern Poverty Law Center” is probably the most significant source of fuel for Jew-haters world-wide. They most certainly have blood on their hands.

Unfortunately, Miller’s cruel rampage will feed the $PLC’s coffers even more. The beast will become ever more bloated, and generate even more hatred and bloodshed. And so the cycle continues.

jabba the hutt



Mary Elizabeth Williams, of Salon, is upset because of a “sexist” handbook for the Oakland Raiders cheerleaders. Williams writes:

In a section of the book about fraternization, it acknowledges, “There have been a few relationships between the two groups that have resulted in a few happy marriages and lovely children,” but goes on to warn, “HOWEVER, we have also had more situations where, quite frankly, the Raider organization and the Raiderettes narrowly escaped ruined reputations.” It goes on to elaborate: “One such example concerns a player who gave Halloween parties every year and many of the Raiderettes attended. This same player was suspended from the team for drug use but also arrested for date rape. For you on the squad who have attended those parties, just think how narrowly you missed having your photo in all the local papers and/or being assaulted.” And/or. Whatever. But mostly, think upon how you might have sullied the team’s good name by getting in the papers. For being raped. Oh and by the way, the definition of date rape is rape. It’s even in the state penal code! 

But the handbook may be alluding to the late defensive tackle Darrell Russell, who in 2002 was accused, along with two other men, of drugging and raping a woman Russell had been “casually dating.” The case was eventually dropped because it couldn’t be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Here’s the accompanying photo of the cheerleaders:


Needless to say, the team itself is heavily black (not that its white players are necessarily safe to be around either) and the cheerleaders predominantly white. With the mostly white Raiderettes, and the mostly black Raiders – and calls for the former to be wary of the latter, it’s a wonder Williams didn’t call the handbook “racist.”

As this handbook “scandal” has been making the rounds on the internet, I’m reminded of John Derbyshire’s talk that got him fired from the National Review. This author probably knew better than to mention anything about race; that way, if she found herself the subject of criticism, she could plead the lesser charge of sexism and keep her job.

A while ago I wrote a post titled A black answer to black-on-white rape statistics. There are now 72 comments. Some of them are by a persistent character who calls himself “move.” Apparently he’s made it his life’s mission to find white-on-black rapes and then use them to disprove the FBI’s statistics, which show vastly more black-on-white rapes than the other way around. Despite the fact that the FBI is clearly biased AGAINST whites, as evidenced by their habit of including Hispanics as “whites” when they commit crimes, but as “Hispanics” when they’re victims, move insists that the FBI is actually biased in favor of whites. His evidence? He’s managed to find some white-on-black rapes and other crimes.

I know of nobody who denies that there are bad apples among whites. Out of the tens of millions of whites, who still inhabit the U.S., we’re bound to find some very unsavory individuals. In any event, I’ve listed his most recent points, as presented in his comments there, and provided my responses.

1) “White man confessed to sexual assault, kidnap of of 7 year old black girl”

You make it seem like your quote is from the article, that the article identifies the girl as black. In fact, it doesn’t. Not only that, but I could find no source on the web revealing the race of the victim. Obviously, it’s a heinous crime regardless of the victim’s race.

2) 16 year old Black Boy Raped And Beaten To Death By White Men Over Drug Money

The article states that the boy was beaten to death. Nowhere does it mention that he was raped. He was, however, black. So this is a rare case of white-on-black murder – which is not the subject of this post.

3) “Sixty percent of the men exonerated by the Innocence Project are blacks wrongly convicted raping largely white women.”

From the article:

The New York-based Innocence Project has identified the real criminal in 40 percent of its cases, Neufeld said. And in almost every one, that person has committed multiple crimes.

I’ll bet dollars to donuts that all those “real criminals” were also black – but the article conveniently leaves out the racial statistics here. Are you naive enough to believe that had those 40% been largely white men, the article would have somehow neglected to tell us? White women are being raped by black men, and sometimes they then point their fingers at the wrong black men. This shouldn’t surprise us.

4) According to the FBI, about 95,000 forcible rapes were reported in 2004. Based on the statements and studies cited above, some 47,000 American men are falsely accused of rape each year. These men are disproportionately African-American.

Of course they’re going to be disproportionately black men; if real rapists are disproportionately black men, then naturally the fake ones will be too. Let’s take your line of reasoning to its logical conclusion regarding another group: Men in general. Would you be surprised if I told you that most people who are falsely accused of rape are men? This being the case, would you then conclude that women are just as likely to be rapists as men? According to your reasoning, this would have to be the case – since men are so often wrongly accused.

5) “More than 86 percent of rapes against Native American women are carried out by non-native men, most of them white, according to the Justice Department.”

Yes, but bear in mind that “white,” when it comes to perpetrators of crime, includes Hispanics. Either way, this is not surprising. Native American women are dispersed throughout the population – a population that is still largely white. If they hang out with white men, date white men, and live next to white men, when they’re raped, it’s probably going to be by a white man. In this case, it’s their dispersion that’s to blame – unless you’re insinuating that white men are sneaking into Indian reservations to rape Indian women. But I seriously doubt this is the case. Native women are raped mostly by white men for the same reason white women are mostly raped by white men: They live around white men.

It’s a big world out there, and you have a lot of free time, so you were able to find a handful of white-on-black rapes. It happens. I don’t deny it. But it’s still a statistical rarity. I’d scour the internet, as you did, to compose my own list – but I don’t have to; others have already done so. Here’s on website that lists white victims of black crime. It’s in chronological order and you can knock yourself out cataloging them as “rape” or “non-rape” crimes if you want:

White victims of black crime

I’m sure my readers will be happy to contribute many black-on-white rape cases, and lists, for your perusal.


Today and tomorrow I’ll be reblogging a couple of recent articles that impressed me. Tonight’s reblog is from “Those Who Can See”. She never disappoints and her research is top-notch. I’m sure you’ll enjoy this post as much as I did:


Most of y’all have probably already read about the recent horrific case in New Mexico. To summarize:

The incident began on Jan. 2 as David Eckert was leaving the local Walmart in Deming, N.M. He reportedly failed to make a complete stop at a stop sign, prompting police to pull him over.

The officers asked him to step out of the vehicle and claim the man appeared to be clenching his buttocks, Eckert’s attorney, Shannon Kennedy, told TheBlaze. It is unclear why police removed him from the vehicle in the first place. However, because the cops believed he was clenching his buttocks, they took it as reason to suspect him of hiding narcotics in his anal cavity.

Police officers detained Eckert after a narcotics sniffing dog allegedly issued a “hit” on Eckert’s car seat. Meanwhile, they sought a search warrant for an anal cavity search…

Upon securing the warrant, Deming police officers took the man to an emergency room, but hit their first snag when a doctor refused to perform the anal cavity search because he believed it to be “unethical.”

So police tried again at the Gila Regional Medical Center in Silver City, N.M., where doctors agreed to the search…

1. Eckert’s abdominal area was X-rayed; no narcotics were found.

2. Doctors then performed an exam of Eckert’s anus with their fingers; no narcotics were found.

3. Doctors performed a second exam of Eckert’s anus with their fingers; no narcotics were found.

4. Doctors penetrated Eckert’s anus to insert an enema. Eckert was forced to defecate in front of doctors and police officers. Eckert watched as doctors searched his stool. No narcotics were found.

5. Doctors penetrated Eckert’s anus to insert an enema a second time. Eckert was forced to defecate in front of doctors and police officers. Eckert watched as doctors searched his stool. No narcotics were found.

6. Doctors penetrated Eckert’s anus to insert an enema a third time. Eckert was forced to defecate in front of doctors and police officers. Eckert watched as doctors searched his stool. No narcotics were found.

7. Doctors then X-rayed Eckert again; no narcotics were found.

8. Doctors prepared Eckert for surgery, sedated him, and then performed a colonoscopy where a scope with a camera was inserted into Eckert’s anus, rectum, colon and large intestines. No narcotics were found.

And then the hospital had the audacity to bill Eckert for “services!”

Mangan has already pointed out that most of the guilty officers are Hispanic, while the victim is white. It’s unclear whether ethnic animus had anything to do with this sordid story, but the fact remains that Eckert has experienced two evils that have been foisted upon us by our government: The War on Some Drugs and “diversity”.

A commenter at Mangans, by the name of Porter, pointed out that one of the two offending doctors was Okay Odocha, from Nigeria. The other doctor, Robert Wilcox,was white. I don’t know which doctor was the main culprit in this crime, but it’s fair to wonder if Odocha’s Nigerian values had anything to do with this flagrant violation of the Hippocratic oath. Though I’m sure there are many fine people from Nigeria (and I’ve known a few), the country is well known for its crime and corruption; it has a bad reputation even in Africa. I don’t have an explanation for Mr. Wilcox, other than very poor judgment.

As for the War on Some Drugs, ridiculous laws lead to ridiculous police behavior. It was only a matter of time before incidents such as this would grace our news sources.

I’ve wondered if, prior to his misfortune, Mr. Eckert vocally opposed the War on Some Drugs. I wonder if he spoke out against “diversity”. If not, or if he voted for politicians who support population replacement policies, or who support the War on Some Drugs, then Mr. Eckert is partly responsible for his own tribulations.

People are supposed to be more intelligent than animals. We shouldn’t have to be bitten by every evil thing on the planet before we recognize it for what it is and speak up against it. If Mr. Eckert supported these evils, through his voting habits or through his silence, then he’s as much a perpetrator as a victim.

In this story, posted on ABC news, we read about a pregnant white woman who was stabbed by a black intruder:

Rachel Poole, 31, gave birth to her daughter, Isabella, at University Medical Center in El Paso, Texas, following a successful cesarean section, her stepfather, Gary Jones, told

Poole’s mother, Rebecca Jones, declined to comment to on her daughter’s condition, but said the baby girl “is in good health.”

Poole was taken to the hospital on Wednesday evening after she was “brutally attacked” by a 19-year-old who broke into her home and stabbed her repeatedly with a knife, according to an El Paso Police Department news release.

Corey Bernard Moss, of Fort Bliss, Texas, was charged with criminal attempted capital murder after he attacked Poole, who was nine months pregnant, in her kitchen while she was on FaceTime with her husband, El Paso Police Department spokesman Det. Mike Baranyay told

Moss, who had gone to confront Poole about money he owed her, reportedly entered the woman’s home through a rear door and waited for her to return, according to an arrest affidavit.

When the woman arrived home, she was using FaceTime to speak with her husband, Justin Poole, who is deployed overseas, the affidavit said. Poole was video-chatting with her husband when Moss allegedly attacked her from behind and repeatedly stabbed her with a stainless steel folding knife.

Here’s the accompanying photo of perpetrator and victim:

poole the foolHere are a couple of comments from that article:

1) Before you rant about races, know that Poole’s husband, Justin, is black.
2) They are a biracial family. Justin has repeatedly asked for people to leave race out of the equation. Instead of bringing up race let’s see how we as humans and citizens can ease their pain. Which is respect their wishes and keep race out of the topic of conversation.
While, in this case, it’s true that the mudshark’s actual husband didn’t stab her, this doesn’t make race irrelevant at all. I’ll quote myself, from my very first post on this blog:
Even today, when you marry somebody, you are not marrying just the man.  You are also, in a sense, marrying his family, his friends and his life history.  So you found a black man who bucked the trends.  That’s wonderful.  Did his brothers, cousins and uncles, who come to visit sometimes, also buck the trends?  Did his friends also buck the trends?  Will your mixed children buck the trends?  Will his (as of yet unknown) criminal history, child support obligations, or health problems become your burden as well?
The moment this woman chose to marry a black man, even a decent and law-abiding black man, she also chose to attach herself to other blacks. In this case, her choice proved almost fatal. Had she died, she could have been a contender for the Darwin Awards.

Next Page »


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 143 other followers