Second: You can make a tax deductible contribution via VDARE by clicking here. (Paypal and credit cards accepted, including recurring "subscription" donations.) UPDATE: Don't try this at the moment.
Third: send money via the Paypal-like Google Wallet to my Gmail address (that's isteveslrATgmail.com -- replace the AT with a @). (Non-tax deductible.)
Here's the Google Wallet FAQ. From it: "You will need to have (or sign up for) Google Wallet to send or receive money. If you have ever purchased anything on Google Play, then you most likely already have a Google Wallet. If you do not yet have a Google Wallet, don’t worry, the process is simple: go to wallet.google.com and follow the steps." You probably already have a Google ID and password, which Google Wallet uses, so signing up Wallet is pretty painless.
You can put money into your Google Wallet Balance from your bank account and send it with no service fee.
Or you can send money via credit card (Visa, MasterCard, AmEx, Discover) with the industry-standard 2.9% fee. (You don't need to put money into your Google Wallet Balance to do this.)
Google Wallet works from both a website and a smartphone app (Android and iPhone -- the Google Wallet app is currently available only in the U.S., but the Google Wallet website can be used in 160 countries).
Or, once you sign up with Google Wallet, you can simply send money via credit card, bank transfer, or Wallet Balance as an attachment from Google's free Gmail email service. Here's how to do it.
(Non-tax deductible.)
Fourth: if you have a Wells Fargo bank account, you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Wells Fargo SurePay. Just tell WF SurePay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). (Non-tax deductible.)
Fifth: if you have a Chase bank account (or, theoretically,other bank accounts), you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Chase QuickPay (FAQ). Just tell Chase QuickPay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address (steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). If Chase asks for the name on my account, it's Steven Sailer with an n at the end of Steven. (Non-tax deductible.)
Posts
93 comments:
Steve, I believe that in almost every place in America, every man who is of able body and mind should keep a gun at home for protection from home invaders and another gun in his car for protection from carjackers. I am believe that in general more guns means less crime.
That being said, NYC is the exception to the rule. Strict gun prohibition works spectacularly well in Manhattan.
Are there any other people out there who agree with me, people who want concealed carry in most of the USA, but who want strict draconian gun prohibition in Manhattan and a few cities like Manhattan?
That being said, NYC is the exception to the rule. Strict gun prohibition works spectacularly well in Manhattan.
I don't think it has to do with gun control. It's mostly real estate prices - money from all over the rich world, Europe, Asia, etc. flows into Manhattan to bid up real estate prices, plus Hispanics replacing blacks.
Rahm Emanuel wants to replicate what Giuliani and Bloomberg did with NYC but it's harder because Chicago isn't as prestigious. Rich foreigners who want to park some money in high end urban real estate, want to do it in NYC, not Chicago.
Chicago has the double wammy of large black and hispanic populations.
@Anonymous 3:15
That's spectacularly silly. It's so easy to get a gun and bring it to Manhattan, doesn't matter if it's banned. The people murdering don't care about laws..
The reason Manhattan has few issues is because poor black people don't live there.
First and foremost, you have to thank stop and frisk for the low murder rate in Manhattan. You have to blame the lack of stop and frisk for the high murder rate in Chicago.
That being said, are there some other causes, of secondary importance? Could it be that, totally aside from the effectiveness of the gun ban in NYC vs failure of the ban in Chicago that there is a fundamental difference in the willingness to of chicago police to risk their lives by confronting dangerous nams vs the eagerness by which NYPD confronts dangerous nams?
If you spend any time reading the second city cop blog you see a picture of good cops driven to behave in lazy ineffective ways and just sort of let the NAMs do what they want in their own neighborhoods.
Anyone with experience with the Chicago pd and with the new york pd please chime in here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Chicago
Racial makeup in 2010 was 31% non hispanic white, 32% black, 28% Hispanic. The Hispanic percentage seems very high, and most likely recent. My guess is that the rise in homicide would be linked to the increase in Hispanics.
Note that Illinois is also one of the few states that doesn't allow concealed carry. If concealed carry has an effect, then Chicago's crime rate will be higher while others recede, this will look like Chicago had a rise in crime.
http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2011/01/concealed-carry-map-in-january-2011.html
Maybe it's because real estate is more limited in NYC, and it has been harder to price people out of the area.
Ie, always a lower price area to move to.
If Frank Sinatra was alive today, would Chicago still be his his kind of town ?
Not enough of the vibrant sort have been moved into the surrounding areas
via Federal assistance. Itz an ongoing program and will be completed when Chicago's percentage of vibrancy drops to under 10%. The Hispanics are not quite as bad but they also should be moved out to the suburbs to man the fast food restaurants, grass cutting services, metal pickup construction services.
Next we will need 15 foot walls to keep out the rif raf. The ultimate gated community just like in the movie "Soylent Green".
"Steve, I believe that in almost every place in America, every man who is of able body and mind should keep a gun at home for protection from home invaders and another gun in his car for protection from carjackers. I am believe that in general more guns means less crime"
Except that 80% of all murder victims are killed by someone they know.
Gun prohibition works in lower Manhattan, because of the ethnic cleansing of Blacks by Hispanics who for now are less violent prone.
Gun prohibition is of course a total failure in the South Bronx, in much of Brooklyn, and Harlem.
Rather, Steve, you should be following "Paul Kersey" and SBDL work in detailing America's most violent cities and the ethnic composition thereof. America's Most Dangerous Cities.
Manhattan is a geographic and economic anomaly. Surrounded by water, isolated from other boroughs, and very pricey with lots of Murray's "Superzips" there, it is far different from Oakland, Detroit, Birmingham, Atlanta, Dallas, Miami, Nashville, Memphis, almost every city save the Whiteopias of Seattle, Portland, Salt Lake City, and Boise.
There is no nada none zero zilch appetite for stop and frisk in Chicago, which is too big and Black to sustain such an effort (it is easier to maintain that through geographic choke points such as the subway/bus systems into Manhattan). What, CPD are going to randomly stop and search Black guys? Meanwhile NYPD can do that for ALL subway users coming into Manhattan at certain well known choke points.
And the same holds true for Dallas, Atlanta, Memphis, Nashville, Indianapolis, Gary, Cleveland, etc. all of which are too spread out for stop-and-frisk to work.
Status, dominance, power, all relate to reputation, and the killings in Chicago are pretty much a way for young men to get laid, to put it bluntly. Everytime a person is killed, you can bet that the shooter is if free, getting some, in places like Chicago. Where the crack wars are long gone. But the need to stand out and get the "best" girls is still there.
Whiskey. [For some reason Google is not picking up my username though it shows in Blogger. Sigh.]
damn, i remember when NYC would have 2000 murders a year. wonder what the murder rate was in 1979 when "the warriors" was filmed. just checked, 2092 murders. violent crime was spiking then in NYC, which was probably the thinking behind "escape from new york". still less murders per year between 1979 and 1982 than there were during the all-time peak years of 1987 to 1994.
it's funny though, puerto rico today is about 2 times as dangerous as NYC was during it's 2605 murders a year peak in 1990. yet puerto rico has very strict gun control, about as strict as new york city. as it is not a US state, puerto rico does not operate under the 2nd amendment to the US constitution, and the right to own small arms does not exist there. so much for less guns always meaning less crime. sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. mexico, likewise, has extremely strict gun control, with citizens basically being denied the right to own small arms. yet the violent crime rate is sky high.
as far as LA goes, one factor in the decline of violent crime rates: mexicans have pushed africans out. not that they're not violent either. just less violent than the africans who turned LA into a national crime show in the 80s and 90s.
"Are there any other people out there who agree with me, people who want concealed carry in most of the USA, but who want strict draconian gun prohibition in Manhattan and a few cities like Manhattan?"
i doubt many people feel that way. they either want their handgun or shotgun, or they want everybody disarmed. not much in between.
plus how can you rationalize that. one set of rules for them, another set of rules for us. this is classic year 2012 liberal stuff. politicians who simply ignore any laws they don't like in their jurisdiction.
that's why i said it's conceivable in another decade or two to see liberal mayors actually disarming their constituents. people under their jurisdiction are just gonna have their guns taken away. they already do this for other laws which they don't like, but some people fight VERY hard against having their small arms taken away. that's probably the only reason this has been a lot slower to happen than other liberal initiatives like deliberately allowing an illegal alien invasion in a city they govern.
Maybe Mayor Emmnuel has pulled back police from black only areas to better protect the tourist/white areas. He did supposedly say that 25% of the public school students would never amount to anything and he didn't want to spend money on them.
I live in Chicago and have noticed that blacks on the street have gotten more aggressive since Obama was elected.
They've been watching too many Tarantino films. That sort of thing rots the brain. Throw in incessant gangsta-rap and you've got a stiff drink for those unpromising folks who aren't very bright and not very much based in reality to begin with.
It's only been four years since the last time the five hundred mark was passed so what's the big deal now? It's not as if a hundred year record is being broken. Things go up, they go down, just like everything else.
Those who claim to know say this city has a hundred-thousand gang members. If that's true then they are the wimpiest gangbangers anywhere; there's no reason they shouldn't be able to achieve a thousand in a year except for their innate mediocrity. Perhaps 2013 will be the year of the gladiator. Let the contests begin.
Chicago reached 500 homicides in 2008. Will probably be in the 400s next year. This seems like random fluctuation around a baseline.
Actually, I'll throw something out there. We had warm early months in 2012. Global warming > more homicides in blue-state cities.
Chicago has gun control laws that are often referred to as "Draconian". It DOES NOT WORK - unless they are meant to cause gun related deaths.
Chicago would be MUCH better off with concealed carry laws, as would any place that does not have them - including Manhatten.
Let's focus for a moment on only one type of crime.. home invasion. Home invasion is when criminals know you are at home and break in to your house, hold you hostage and force you to tell them where you keep your valuable stuff and force you to open your safe.
I am not an expert on this but my understanding is that in some places where guns are illegal, huge numbers of criminals decide to become home invaders because they know that the home owners won't have guns.
I have heard Scotland cited as a place where there are massive numbers of home invasions.
In contrast, I have heard that in parts of the USA where people keep guns at home, home invasions are almost un heard of. Criminals in the USA will spend a lot of time in advance, trying to figure out when you won't be home and they break in when you are not home
First of all, I ask if anyone else here an offer data that supports the fact that the only reason why we don't have massive numbers of home invasions here in the USA is cause criminals know that Americans keep guns at home.
does the Chicago gun ban lead to massively more home invasions in Chicago as compared to Los Angeles since huge % of home owners in LA legally keep guns at home?>
How much of the Chicago homicide problem could we solve by making pot legal and inexpensive?
Assume that young men in Chicago could buy pot very inexpensively, wouldn't many of them spend their time mellow and baked rather than committing crimes?
Second of all, if the police stopped investigating pot dealing, couldn't the police spend more time investigating violent crime?
Is there anyone else on this blog that agrees with me -- anyone else who doesn't use pot and who doesn't want his family members or his employees using pot, but who wants it legal on the theory that violent crime falls dramatically when pot is made legal and inexpensive?
As will all of these things - the statistics mean nothing to me until I see them broken out by race and income level.
Once you give me the homicide statistics broken out like that (for NYC & Chicago), then we can start the discussion.
a local Chicago news station provided some interesting statistics on the number of murders in Chicago and other big cities as well as police staffing levels. Chicago has a larger police force than any other major city but a higher murder rate.
http://chicagotonight.wttw.com/2012/08/08/police-staffing
Gun control is only effective when coupled with actions to enforce it - e.g. stop and frisk. As Whiskey says, that fails when the population needed to frisk gets too large.
The solution has been around since the Chinese have had their civilization up and running - build a wall and keep savage people on the other side of it.
http://i.imgur.com/dCa9U.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/J5Iuv.jpg
1/ So if I've got this right Chicago has become more violent because it has gotten more Hispanics, and NYC has gotten less violent because it has gotten more Hispanics.
2/ The reason Chicago existed in the first place was as a transportation hub (southernmost Great Lakes city) is no longer important. Outside of the University of Chicago it never had an intellectual base. It has no large industry anymore, and is the center of no major type of business. And its cold.
Therefore anyone living there basically is too poor/dumb to live elsewhere-the exact type of person who would turn to violent crime.
Chicago 2000 Hispanic population was 1.4 million, as opposed to 1.8mil in 2010. Perhaps that's enough to drive the increase in murder
http://www.cmap.illinois.gov/moving-forward/efficient-governance-in-detail/-/asset_publisher/Q4En/blog/latino-population-growth-drives-metropolitan-chicago%E2%80%99s-population-growth/276584?isMovingForward=1
Chicago has the double wammy of large black and hispanic populations.
Unlike New York, I suppose.
Racial makeup in 2010 was 31% non hispanic white, 32% black, 28% Hispanic. The Hispanic percentage seems very high, and most likely recent. My guess is that the rise in homicide would be linked to the increase in Hispanics.
No. Hispanics didn't just arrive in Chicago in 2012. The hispanic proportion of the city has been rising for years and years. During that time Chicago's homicide rate has declined significantly, from over 900 murders per year in the early 1990s to 500 or less per year for the last eight years.
Gun prohibition works in lower Manhattan, because of the ethnic cleansing of Blacks by Hispanics who for now are less violent prone.
Gun prohibition is of course a total failure in the South Bronx, in much of Brooklyn, and Harlem.
Wrong.
http://projects.nytimes.com/crime/homicides/map
Click on Boroughs and you'll see that homicide is down over 50% in the Bronx from 2003 to 2011. In fact, with a homicide rate of 4.2 (based on the 59 homicides reported by the NY Times for 2011), the Bronx hardly ranks among the most dangerous places in America. That's quite surprising (and encouraging) for a populace of well over a million people, maybe 70% of whom are some kind of black, either African-American, African, or Afro-Caribbean.
"What are the most plausible theories for what is going on in Chicago?"
It's #1 Community Organizer moved on to a new gig?
Whiskey:
Gun prohibition works in lower Manhattan, because of the ethnic cleansing of Blacks by Hispanics who for now are less violent prone.
Gun prohibition is of course a total failure in the South Bronx, in much of Brooklyn, and Harlem."
Crime has fallen in all boroughs of NYC. For example there were 653 murders in 1990 in the Bronx, 148 in 2011, 109 in 2012 up through December 16th. In other words, this year's body count in the Bronx will be less than one fifth of what it was in 1990. The same thing (within a few percentage points) can be said about Harlem and about both trendy and untrendy parts of Brooklyn. Whiskey is also wrong when he says that blacks in "lower Manhattan" were replaced by Hispanics. The Hispanic population of NYC has been falling for a while now, though not as fast as the black population. According to the vital statistics reports put out by the city, the number of Hispanic births per year has fallen by 9% during the gentrification era (1990-present). Black births are down by 36%, white births by 1%, Asian births have increased. Specifically in lower Manhattan, white hipsters have been replacing Puerto Ricans and Dominicans on the Lower East Side (anyone interested can look up Loisaida).
Ahhh, New York! A city that was descending into absolute chaos, a city stuffed to the gills with Progressives who had elected a black mayor. How noble of them!
Of course, that black mayor watched as chaos increased and life for whites became hellish. So the Progressive whites of New York turned to a Rethuglican mayor to save the sinking ship, and lo and behold, he did it! The Progressive Whites thanked him by calling him Adolph Giuliani and running a non-stop smear and hate campaign against him. Anyone who listened to Liberal talk radio in the Giuliani years will attest to the incredible level of hatred spewed at him.
Still, in the privacy of the voting booth the Noble Progressive New Yorkers pulled the lever for him, only to lie about it at cocktail parties. But he made New York safe. Safe for White Progressives, who slandered him from the get-go. Giuliani's success was miraculous, flat-out miraculous. He tamed a city widely viewed as "ungovernable" and heading toward certain ruin. It's one of the only instances of truly great, turnaround governance in the 20th century.
Now the Progs tool around as if New York were always that safe, and they don't remember the cold dread that a white person would feel in the 70s, 80s and early 90s while riding the subway or when turning down the wrong street. They vote for Obama by 80% or whatever it is. They are stone-cold idiots.
"CPD are going to randomly stop and search Black guys? Meanwhile NYPD can do that for ALL subway users coming into Manhattan at certain well known choke points."
I've been using the subway to come in and out of Manhattan every weekday for more than 20 years. I first learned about stop and frisk from the news a year or two ago. If I didn't follow the news, I still wouldn't know anything about it. But Whiskey is sure that "ALL" subway users go through it "at certain well known choke points." I love that word "certain". It's Whiskey in a nutshell.
I would guess that young black guys are a little more aware of stop and frisk than people in my social circle. But that's just that - guessing.
If someone could invent a non-retarded looking platform shoe for males, we would never hear from Whiskey again. Honestly dude just murder someone already and get laid.
The crime rate I think is pretty confined to the South Side of the city, which is poor and NAM dominated. The Downtown and North Side is very SWPL like. Emanuel however is going to have to do something, but I don't know if he has any Rudy in him. I guess Mayor Daley II did a better job than a lot of us thought.
NYPD is just better at Compstat fraud than CPD. The violent crimes are there, just getting downgraded to "accidental" homicide, whatever the fuck that means.
There is no nada none zero zilch appetite for stop and frisk in Chicago, which is too big and Black to sustain such an effort (it is easier to maintain that through geographic choke points such as the subway/bus systems into Manhattan). What, CPD are going to randomly stop and search Black guys? Meanwhile NYPD can do that for ALL subway users coming into Manhattan at certain well known choke points.
Don't be absurd. The subway routes out of Manhattan (13 tunnels, three bridges) are not a "choke point" by any stretch of the imagination, given the huge volume of riders they carry.
Peter
The decline in crime in NY is not related just to the increased gentrification and choke point policing in Manhattan. That is just one borough. Obviously the real declines have occurred in the NAM neighborhoods of Brooklyn and the Bronx.
NYC is weird and a sort of city-state unto itself in more ways than one. Right turn on red? No. Legal driving age? Ixnay on the Ixteensay. And oh-on-say.
I'm actually a pretty big gun-having proponent, but I'm also a big proponent of local control for that sort of thing--as long as you do your local-controlling within the strictures of the 2nd Amendment. Anyway, I live in Manhattan and don't much mind the restrictions. Then again, I wouldn't much mind it if they were lifted either...
I've lived in both the Gold Coast of Chicago and Midtown Manhattan. In terms of the feeling of personal safety the two neighborhoods feel very much the same. The crime stats also bare out this observation, the vast majority of crime occurs in areas that no middle class person ever steps foot in.
Chicago is probably the most segregated major city in the United States. Cops in Lincoln Park will harass any even slightly ghetto looking person until they're made to know to stay away. I've also lived in Philadelphia, and the contrast there couldn't be even more stark. Even the most expensive neighborhoods like Rittenhouse Square overflow with ghetto looking people cavorting about freely.
Frankly I think there's simply no demand for a Giuliani-style crime crackdown in Chicago. It's not like the city feels under siege like New York did in the early 90s. Nor is it the case that the crime is spilling over and brining down real estate values, like the process that sent Detroit spiraling.
The gang-bangers might be shooting each other in record numbers. But to the North side plastic surgeons and hedge fund managers these shootings might as well have occurred in Somalia for all they care. Out of sight, out of mind.
Maybe the gun nuts could get it through their heads that 80% of the population doesn't want to carry a gun. And that doesn't make any of us less of a man. We just don't want to shoot ourselves in the foot. Walking around without a gun is called civilization.
My guess is that the rise in homicide would be linked to the increase in Hispanics.
"While blacks make up about 33 percent of the city's population, they accounted for nearly 78 percent of the homicide victims through the first six months of 2012.
By comparison, just 11 homicide victims in the first six months of the year were white, and 44 were Hispanic, according to police data.
...
With one exception, African-Americans have made up more than 70 percent of homicide victims in Chicago every year for the last two decades."
My guess would be drug wars in the black demographic being particularly bad this year.
Truth said...
""Steve, I believe that in almost every place in America, every man who is of able body and mind should keep a gun at home for protection from home invaders and another gun in his car for protection from carjackers. I am believe that in general more guns means less crime""
Except that 80% of all murder victims are killed by someone they know."
And given that over half of all murders in this country are committed by blacks, if I don't know any blacks, I've greatly increased my odds of not getting murdered.
You've brought this up before, and it remains a non-sequitur. People are not all equally likely to be murdered. Murder tends to be a lower-class thing, so if you aren't in that demographic, you're not nearly as likely to be murdered by someone you know. Then the greatest threat to you is being murdered by a stranger, and in that case, the likelihood of that stranger being black is not so unlikely.
Whites who avoid blacks who appear untrustworthy (by, for example, sporting the thug uniform) do so because it is rational to do so.
Here's a some data from the CPD on murders last year:
https://portal.chicagopolice.org/portal/page/portal/ClearPath/News/Statistical%20Reports/Murder%20Reports/MA11.pdf
Notes:
* Murders outdoors have been increasing while those indoors have been dropping. (p 6.) I suspect this is the result of more dudes slinging dope being shot down on the corner.
* There's a pretty low clearance rate on the murders (p. 11). Of 433 murders in 2011, 128 were cleared in 2011. This again suggests "just business" murders rather than friends shooting each other after too much dice.
* 351 by handgun, 1 by rifle, 5 by shotgun. Gotta control those assault rifles, man.
* A clear majority of the motives for murder was street gang, narcotics, and territory fights. That probably underestimates the true percentage.
* The vast majority of the victims are in the 16-32 age group.
* 75% of victims are black, 19% hispanic (p. 37). The vast majority of murders are intra-racial.
* 75% of victims have prior arrest history
* There's a big spike in perp ages at 17-20 yo.
"plus how can you rationalize that. one set of rules for them, another set of rules for us."
I can rationalize it very easily. Ready?
We are intelligent, conscientious, fair-minded, advanced human beings. They are, well, none of those things.
Chicago is right next to Gary, Indiana, the steelworker equivalent of Detroit. Chicago aldermen are always in the news for pistol-whipping their secretary or shooting the odd accountant. Rotten apples at the top, compost pile next door, 65% minority- no wonder the Daleys are finding other work. And maybe the loss of experienced leadership is reflected in a crime rise.
Great architecture though, Hot Dougs makes great dogs, great ball games, great museums- go in the day, in a pack, keep cool, be out by dark- it's a great day trip.
That's almost twenty times the number killed in Newton.
Surely it is New York that is the exception, not Chicago.
For the first few months of the year, the murder rate was up 50% compared to 2011, which is quite mysterious, but for the whole year it is only up 15%.
Anon @ 3:40pm is probably right that stop & frisk is the biggest difference. The NYPD may also be more effective in general, and may practice more broken-windows policing.
Whiskey:
1) The murder rate is near 52-year lows in NYC as a whole, not just in Manhattan.
2) Manhattan isn't "isolated" from the other borroughs at all; it's connected by subway to all of them except Staten Island.
3) "Lower Manhattan" isn't used to refer to all of Manhattan below Harlem; it denotes a much smaller area near the southern tip of the island. People usually just refer to the part of Manhattan below Harlem as "Manhattan".
"I live in Chicago and have noticed that blacks on the street have gotten more aggressive since Obama was elected."
Maybe you've gotten wimpier?
There is no nada none zero zilch appetite for stop and frisk in Chicago, which is too big and Black to sustain such an effort (it is easier to maintain that through geographic choke points such as the subway/bus systems into Manhattan). What, CPD are going to randomly stop and search Black guys? Meanwhile NYPD can do that for ALL subway users coming into Manhattan at certain well known choke points.
That's not how "Stop and frisk" works. S&F's legal basis is Terry v. Ohio which basically lays out the context by which cops can detain you and if need be, frisk you for weapons. I'll leave that as an exercise for you to resesarch in depth, but basically the Terry ruling says a cop can detain you for being suspicious.
Police departments have taking advantage of Terry v. Ohio for decades in law enforcement. The reason why NYPD's implementation of the Terry ruling is so controversial is because they've done it very aggressively and blacks have ended up being the overwhelming target of Terry detainments. iSteve readers know it's because black neighborhoods are crime-ridden, of course, but the ACLU and everyone else kneejerks 'racial profiling'.
What you're describing is the policy of NYPD to conduct random checks of people riding public transit which operates under a different and unrelated legal theory.
The explanation for Chicago's high murder rate is likely to be the same as South Africa's - race and age demographics.
Nick South Africa
Key difference: you have to cross a bridge or take a tunnel to get to Manhattan.
Don't be absurd. The subway routes out of Manhattan (13 tunnels, three bridges) are not a "choke point" by any stretch of the imagination, given the huge volume of riders they carry.
Also lots of people walk across the bridges like the Brooklyn Bridge everyday. It's very accessible.
A large concentration of black people.
Sorry, but someone has to point a finger and laugh out loud when seeing the Emperor's regal 'brooch and earrings' dangling away in public.
Just a thought: New York City is nearer than Chicago is to the Canadian border.
"That being said, NYC is the exception to the rule. Strict gun prohibition works spectacularly well in Manhattan.
Are there any other people out there who agree with me, people who want concealed carry in most of the USA, but who want strict draconian gun prohibition in Manhattan and a few cities like Manhattan?"
What happened in Manhattan was that "liberals" turned a blind eye to the ethnic cleansing of black people.
Did the homicide rate in LA peak at the peak of hispanics being used to displace black people?
I mention it as pretty much all this stuff seems to revolve around
Stage 1)
Black violent crime is used to ethnically cleanse white people from a city one neighborhood at a time.
Stage 2
Once black people have served their purpose and all the white people are gone then hispanics or cops or property values are used to replace the black population with a safer alternative.
Stage 3
There may also be a stage 3 at some point where asians are used to displace hispanics to make it safer still.
(This only applies to cities dominated by the liberal elite as they are the only cities where they can rely on media silence while they run through the stages: New York, LA, Chicago, DC.)
"Frankly I think there's simply no demand for a Giuliani-style crime crackdown in Chicago."
I think there's some truth in this. Chicago doesn't have the same economic base as New York and therefore crime simply does less financial damage.
.
"Anon @ 3:40pm is probably right that stop & frisk is the biggest difference. The NYPD may also be more effective in general, and may practice more broken-windows policing."
You also need media cover. Any conservative white mayor in a Republican town who tried to do the same thing New York did i.e. effectively bringing back localized Sundowner laws, would get crucified by the media.
So if you have a strong economic and political base and media cover you can get the cops to chase out black criminals and then let property values do the rest.
However if you have media cover but not the rest then you bring in a lot of hispanic immigrants and let drug and gang violence push the black population out a more bloody way.
.
"Walking around without a gun is called civilization."
Walking around without a gun in Somalia is called civilization?
"The phrase "ethnic cleansing" implies violence, Sport."
There is violence. iirc there was a peak of under-reported hispanic on black drug/gang homicides around the time black people were pushed out of some of their core areas in LA - although i may be misremembering this as it was a while back.
It's no different to black-white ethnic cleansing. White people start moving away when there's been a few stabbings or rapes near their home or their kid's school. It doesn't take a mass slaughter.
In the same way if hispanics are increasing on the edge of a historically black area and the black gangs are losing the battle over drugs it doesn't take hundreds of dead in pitched battles to make people start moving - one or two kids shot in the crossfire is all it takes - and as the people who move first are the people with young kids it means the losing side gradually become out-numbered in the key young male demographic.
It's the legacy of white gangsters such as Capone being bad role models. It's a vicious circle, man.
"And given that over half of all murders in this country are committed by blacks, if I don't know any blacks, I've greatly increased my odds of not getting murdered."
And as I posted the other day, 83% of whites are killed by other whites, so if you don't know any whites either, your odds of living a long life are SIGNIFICANTLY increased, eh Sport?
"That's almost twenty times the number killed in Newton."
Yeah, in almost 8,760 times the time!
(24x365)
The phrase "ethnic cleansing" implies violence, Sport.
No, it doesn't it implies the threat of violence. Which guess what is exactly what a police officer "offering" to frisk you is.
"Gun prohibition works in lower Manhattan, because of the ethnic cleansing of Blacks by Hispanics who for now are less violent prone."
The phrase "ethnic cleansing" implies violence, Sport.
But to the intelligent, your response doesn't imply that mestizos aren't less prone to violence than blacks are.
Here's my opportunity to mention a particular ethnic cleansing campaign:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_exodus_from_Central_and_Eastern_Europe
It culminated in expulsions of Germans from Central and Eastern Europe in the aftermath of World War II.
So now we know that ethnic cleansing is righteous, if you win. And the cleansed are "troublemakers" and "thoughtcriminals" if they lose. Hurrah!
My impression is there was not the same sort of revolution in police behavior and ideology in Chicago as there was in NYC and other places in the 1990's. Chicago politics has always been ethnic-based and its likely that Daley would not have wanted to lose his support among blacks by choosing policies that would target the group they look up to.
My best guess is that Chicago may be more Mexican than NYC. The mexicans are bringing in vast quantities of marijuana and PCP,etc and employ the blacks to sell it.The blacks have divided into many street gangs and cheerfully kill each other over turf. Also,Manhattan,unlike Chicago,does not have a bunch of blue-collar/middle class suburbs ringing it,where guns can be easily bought. Since "gun control" was invented by Ronald Reagan to stop blacketty-blacks from walkinga round with shotguns,maybe we should consider making gun control racial:You are NOT allowed to sell a gun to a black. If you do,its off to the hoosegow with ya!Remember those old Westerns where the bad guy was selling guns to the Indians--and that was verboten? We need a similar law re OUR savages!Interesting that our Police Chief is from NY and had a lot of success there. Well sir,NY aint Chicago. I think a lot of the local cops who had knowledge of the gangs and their doings have ben pushed aside. Morale is low on the CPD. First the effete former FBI guy Jody Weis,a total failure. And now the Know-It-All NYer McCarthy.
that 80% of the population doesn't want to carry a gun.
Then don't. Concealed carry has positive externalities. If I'm carrying concealed, and you're not, the criminals can't tell us apart. A criminal sizing you up for a crime has to take into account the possibility that you're a gap-toothed, knuckle-dragging, anti-civilization, inbred redneck, like me.
Walking around without a gun is called civilization.
No, that's a byproduct of civilization. You have to fight to get civilization, and you have to fight to keep it. There's nothing civilized about being a compliant victim.
eh Sport Sport Sport,
eh Sport Sport Sport,
eh Sport Sport Sport,
eh Sport Sport Sport,
eh Sport?
"Truth said...
And as I posted the other day, 83% of whites are killed by other whites, so if you don't know any whites either, your odds of living a long life are SIGNIFICANTLY increased, eh Sport?"
What you posted was, as always, twaddle. I already avoid those whites who are likely to murder me. The number of whites I need to exclude from my daily interactions in order to insulate myself from crime is far less than the number of blacks I need to avoid - and that despite the fact that there are many more white people than black people.
That is the consequence of black's many-fold higher crime rate. Either you refuse to get that because you are innumerate, or because, being black, you just don't want to admit that your people are much more likely to exhibit criminal behavior.
What are the most plausible theories for what is going on in Chicago?
Negroes.
"It seems that Midwestern blacks are the most violent, for some reason. Detroit, st. Louis, Milwaukee, even Minneapolis seem to have major violent crime issues."
Winner, winner, chicken dinner!
Mississippi Delta, post WW2 migration via cheap rail and bus transport. St. Louis doesn't count as a target, it was also a source.
Truth at 7:02 AM: You're wrong, the time it took to kill 500 Chicagoans is not 8760 X the time it took to kill 26 people in Newton. Using your reasoning, we would need to count the number of lethal bullets fired (misses don't count) in each town, measure the distance, note the velocity of the bullets, and calculate the total flight time of all the bullets that actually killed somebody. Which is nonsense. As is your comment.
Or were you making a jest?
Anonymous: I don't know if Chicago's murder numbers would be better off with CCW. Most of the murders are black criminal thugs killing other black criminal thugs, not black criminal thugs killing disarmed whites.
A lot of other crime is Black criminal thugs robbing, raping or assaulting disarmed Whites. Reducing these crimes would be a very good thing. A few well-publicized defensive shootings is a good deterrent.
"And as I posted the other day, 83% of whites are killed by other whites, so if you don't know any whites either, your odds of living a long life are SIGNIFICANTLY increased, eh Sport?"
So...."Truth" mocks, makes fun of, pooh-poohs and belittles us Whites for our concerns about his coethnics, in the aim of convincing us that he, and all the other black men, is our trustworthy friend and ally.
Uhhh....
1991 -- 87 white murder victims in Chicago
1991 -- 928 total murder victims in Chicago
2011 -- 20 white murder victims in Chicago
2011 -- 433 total murder victims in Chicago
2011 -- 4.6% victims were white
As the murder rate has fallen since 1991, the percentage of victims with an arrest record has risen. Total number of victims with arrest record is lower but percentage is higher.
Conclusion: Criminals killing criminals.
"Police departments have taking advantage of Terry v. Ohio for decades in law enforcement. The reason why NYPD's implementation of the Terry ruling is so controversial is because they've done it very aggressively and blacks have ended up being the overwhelming target of Terry detainments. iSteve readers know it's because black neighborhoods are crime-ridden, of course, but the ACLU and everyone else kneejerks 'racial profiling'.
What you're describing is the policy of NYPD to conduct random checks of people riding public transit which operates under a different and unrelated legal theory."
I mean, this is sort of like a police state. Why would 'liberals' prefer police having so much power, rather than armed citizens? It all seems kind of gestapo like. It doesn't seem at all 'liberal' or free.
quick and dirty calculation
2011 -- 23% (of 433) victims no record = 100 innocent victims
1991 -- 39% victims (of 928) no record = 361 innocent victims
(obviously not everyone with an arrest record deserves to die and some with no arrest record need killing. That is why I call it a quick and dirty calc.)
"Here's my opportunity to mention a particular ethnic cleansing campaign:"
Given that those ethnic German communities were used as pretext for the most destructive war in human history, it doesn't seem unreasonable for them to have been consolidated back into Germany after the war.
One thing I've always wondered about that, though, is why the Israelis didn't do the same thing in the West Bank in 1967, and use the post-World War II ethnic German precedent as a justification.
Does anyone know the racial breakdown of those 500 victims? And their kllers?
I still suspect the single best way to avoid being a victim of crime is to avoid blacks.
"No, it doesn't it implies the threat of violence."
Oh, so that's how they got multi-generational crip/blood families to move, by threatening violence.
" The mexicans are bringing in vast quantities of marijuana and PCP,etc and employ the blacks to sell it."
Wait a minute, 5 posts ago they were ethinc-cleansing us, now we're working for them. Who the fuck is their leader, Osama Bin Laden?
" I already avoid those...who are likely to murder me."
I knew there was something unique about you in the annals of human history.
"Or were you making a jest?"
20 people were murdered in Newton an under an hour, and 500 in Chicago in a year. Am I missing something here?
The per capita murder rate in Newton is also higher than it is in Chicago this year, Ronald Fisher.
"I still suspect the single best way to avoid being a victim of crime is to avoid blacks."
...And Kindergartens and Movie Theatres, and Military Bases, and First Responder jobs, and 7-11s...
"So...."Truth" mocks, makes fun of, pooh-poohs and belittles us Whites for our concerns about his coethnics,"
What do you mean "mocks" Sheila? I simply stated the fact, if you want to avoid crime your best option is to avoid ALL blacks and whites, and everyone else...
Oh wait, you don't have friends anyway.
Given that those ethnic German communities were used as pretext for the most destructive war in human history, it doesn't seem unreasonable for them to have been consolidated back into Germany after the war.
Hey, you're preaching to the choir - I love ethnic cleansing! Also:
The exodus began in the aftermath of World War I
Troof the Innumerate said: The per capita murder rate in Newton is also higher than it is in Chicago this year
The per-capita murder rate of households on Chicago's south side which have had family members killed is many (possibly tens of) times that of Newtown (that's Newtown, with a "W").
The funny part is that you probably don't know that you've made a fool of yourself by not understanding statistics, don't understand how the previous sentence mocks you, and are not bright enough to care.
"It seems that Midwestern blacks are the most violent, for some reason. Detroit, st. Louis, Milwaukee, even Minneapolis seem to have major violent crime issues."
Winner, winner, chicken dinner!
Mississippi Delta, post WW2 migration via cheap rail and bus transport. St. Louis doesn't count as a target, it was also a source.
In the Delta, people used to call the bus route to Memphis/Chicago the Chicken Line, since people would take a bucket of chicken with them to eat on the ride.
I've posted before on the Ms Delta/Chicago connection: most of the blacks in Chicago came from there. They brought "blues" culture with them, and it is pretty rough. Listen to bluesman R L Burnside describe his various members of his family getting murdered in Chicago over the course of a year in the fifties after migrating: "Chicago's a rough place".
Another factor: their gangs (Vice Lords and Folk/Gangster Disciples) have been around for over fifty years, longer than the other well-known gangs on the west coast and elsewhere.
Re liberal, Democrat NY City:
ADAM MARTIN 22,081 ViewsAUG 18, 2011
Two stories in The New York Times Wednesday night and Thursday morning brought up two ways that you can get busted for small amounts of marijuana in New York City, where possession of less than seven-eighths of an ounce is supposed to be nothing more than a violation, punishable by a $100 fine. In each, it's not the pot that gets you busted but the circumstances around the pot, and the consequences can be as dire as losing custody of your children.
A City Room blog post from Wednesday night brought news that New York City Council members had introduced a resolution designed to curb persistently numerous illegal searches by police officers. Back in April, WNYC reported in a two-part series that such searches on city streets had increased, and that the searches themselves were creating more serious marijuana infractions. Under state law, simple possession of a small amount of marijuana can be punished by no more than a $100 fine. But if you bring the marijuana out into the open, "the violation becomes a criminal offense," The Times points out, "even when this happens only after the police ask people they stop to empty their pockets or purses." The WNYC study found many reports of police reaching into the pockets of those they stopped on the street and pulling out small amounts of pot. ...
theatlanticwire.com sneaky-ways-get-busted-pot-new-york
"The per-capita murder rate of households on Chicago's south side which have had family members killed is many (possibly tens of) times that of Newtown (that's Newtown, with a "W")."
I don't know, Champ, there are about a million black people in Chicago, and about 26,000 white people in Newtown (with a W!) Conn., so the murder rate in black Chicago is lower than that in white Newtown (with a W!) Conn.
I made the point, Truth mocks and belittles us White people, to make us understand that he and his coethnics aren't bad people, that, really, they're our trustworthy allies.
(The implication being, we're just too stupid to realize he and his are our BFFs, because we stubbornly cling to our unfounded, irrational complaints about their criminality against, and hostility towards, us. Or some shit.)
And in response, he comes back with this:
"What do you mean "mocks" Sheila? I simply stated..."
and then he finishes with: "Oh wait, you don't have friends anyway."
He demonstrates perfectly what I'm talking about in the very post where he denies he does it.
The Negro Brain...
And, BTW, I'm NOT "Sheila." That's another poster.
For about the 88th time, I'm the cowgirl in Wyoming. I live in Wytopia. Because I couldn't take living around blacks and mestizos.
"Truth said...
""I already avoid those...who are likely to murder me.""
I knew there was something unique about you in the annals of human history."
You already said, one is most likely to be killed by a person one knows. And that is correct, as far as I know. Well one thing that mostly IS in our power to control is whom we associate with. Don't associate with violent, unstable people, and you are far less likely to be murdered.
Evidently, you don't understand this. Perhaps it's because you are just stupid (you don't seem to understand arithmetic either, and, no, quoting statistics you read somewhere else is not the same thing as knowing something about math), or perhaps it's just part of your campaign of flacking for black thugs.
ben tillman
"That's not the relevant violence. The violence that causes "ethnic cleansing" of Whites from neighborhoods and cities is admnistered by the national government, which forcibly prevents Whites from excluding the small-scale criminals."
Yes, i should have specified that the ethnic cleansing is being conducted by the liberal elite using proxies. The proxies themselves aren't actively doing anything. They are just following their nose.
The liberal elite use black violent crime rates to ethnically cleanse white people.
Once they've got rid of the white people they cleanse the black people via a combination of cop and property values where they can afford it or by Mexicans where they can't.
Then i assume the third stage will be replacing the mexicans with asians although that will mostly be via property values.
If there's an unplanned fourth stage i expect it will include a doh!
Oh Troo-ooof!
the murder rate in black Chicago is lower than that in white Newtown (with a W!) Conn.
Right! Does that mean you're going to steer clear of that dangerous place, Newtown CT?
Better yet, does that mean you're going to do your best to get all of Chicago's current and ex south siders to avoid Newtown, and anyplace that might be the next Newtown? You've got to face it, there could be an Adam Lanza just about anyplace, waiting to make next year's big headlines (that Chicago's weekly events never do).
If you all stay away, we can at least say we understand why. (Not understanding statistics.)
Post a Comment