correction for: “6% of 13%”

That should have been “46% of 13%” or in other words almost half of a specific demographic that comprises 13% (actually right around 14% now) of the U.S. population.

Well, 6% of 13% of the population that’s a specific demographic seems culture bound to commit over 60% (its actually closer to 70% now) of the crime in the country and commits murders at over 3 times the rate of any other demographic (its actually closer to 4 times now). And that demographic is not White, or Asian, or Hispanic/Latino, or American Indian.

Just saying.

Awaiting moderation. Edit function when? Come on Dan.

For people who are interested in reducing misuse of guns, this is actually good news. It means that you can spend your time on the easier problem of culture, not the impossible task of undoing technical advancement.

We should be optimistic here. The types of gun misuse that are most concerning today were once culturally unthinkable. There’s no reason they can’t be that way again.

How could you remain optimistic when you discover that the gun safety advocates gun grabbers are responsible for intentionally promoting the degradation of our culture? Why would they ever change?

[fill in the blank] charted a course from “technically possible but culturally unthinkable” to “actually happening”

Now apply that to the current gender identity phenomenon.

We’ve armed every extremist group in the ME at one time or another. Then we end up fighting the people we previously armed. Rinse and repeat. While we’re helping them in some way, they’re rebels. At any other time, they’re literally designated terrorists.

We had a hand in this. We’ve had a hand in it for over a decade. Had we stayed out of it, there wouldn’t have been the humanitarian disaster we ended up having because al-Assad, with help from Russia and Iran, would have been able to end the civil war much more quickly. But the policy makers never consider the lives of Syrians, Iraqis, etc. Death and displacement is only a number to them. We obviously knew this was going to happen. Why were we bombing them, and what exactly were we bombing?

What is to gain? For the US, it’s another proxy war with Russia. For Israel, it’s a chance to control some land and destroy weapon stockpiles that could be used against them in the future. What else is to gain for the players? It’s the same thing everyone goes to war for. Control. Are we sending the Syrian refugees back home now? What a mess.

More on the let them fight side of things but interested in who stands to benefit from that situation and what their contribution to the conflict may be.