ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2014 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Friday, December 21, 2012

Why US gun deaths are high

One of the questions often asked by those supporting gun control and those who are merely uninformed alike is why the US has so many gun deaths, especially in comparison with other Western, industrialized countries.

The first reason is obvious.  There are nearly five times more people in the United States than there are in the largest European countries.  This may seem ludicrously obvious, but most people really are that stupid and don't take population sizes into account. The fact that the news media covers all the crimes across the country it deems noteworthy means that the 310 million people in the USA are going to produce about five times more big crime stories than the 63 million in the UK.

The second reason is also related to demographics.  The specific question that was asked was why the USA has a higher rate of gun homicides, 2.97 per 100,000 population than Canada, at only 0.51 per 100,000.  After all, the USA and Canada are very similar countries, are they not?  No, they are not.  Only 3.5 percent of the Canadian population is African and Latin American.  28.9 percent of the US population is African and Latin American.  Does this make a difference?  The chart below demonstrates that this demographic difference is not only significant, but conclusive.

As per The Guardian article of July 12, 2012, the USA had 9,146 gun homicides, the fourth-most of the reporting countries.  That was considerably more than Canada or any of the European nations; Canada had only 173.  Even if one accounts for the much smaller Canadian population, it is obvious that Canadians were much less likely to shoot and kill other Canadians.  Was this because there are fewer guns in Canada, only 30.8 percent compared to the 88.8 percent in the United States?  No, it was because there are fewer African-Canadians and Latin-Canadians, as should be obvious from looking at the chart.

There were even fewer guns per capita in the two Latin countries, 11.5 percent, and in the two African countries, 8.3 percent, than Canada's 30.8 percent, France's 31.2 percent, or Germany's 30.3 percent.  And yet, the gun deaths per capita in all four African and Latin countries were much higher than either Canada or the USA; on average, they were four times higher than the US rate despite there being far fewer guns, and guns per capita, in all of them.  Nor did I cherry-pick any outliers; most African nations don't even report these figures, and based on the news reports, countries such as Congo and Nigeria are even more murderously violent than South Africa and Zimbabwe.  In Latin America alone, there are six countries with higher per capita gun death rates than Brazil, which is six times higher than the USA.

The low rate of gun ownership in these violent countries not only make it clear that the prevalence of guns cannot possibly explain the relatively high US gun death rate in comparison with other European countries, they clearly indicate that gun deaths are a predominantly racial and/or cultural phenomenon.  Since the US is on the track to become a European minority country, it should be readily apparent that as it becomes browner and blacker, it will also become more violent, naturally reflecting the more violent tendencies of the nations from whence the post-1965 immigrants have come instead of those of the European nations who originally populated the country.

If lower gun death rates are a goal, it is clear that reducing the amount of guns will not help, and may even make the matter considerably worse by disarming the law-abiding population and rendering it helpless against the lawless population.  The only way to significantly reduce the amount of gun deaths is to repatriate the immigrants who come from countries where people are disproportionately inclined to shoot other people dead.  Since most Americans presently appear to prefer higher violent crime rates to stopping immigration, much less reducing the percentage of the non-European/Asian/Arab population through deportation, logic dictates that if gun control proponents are successful in their attempts to reduce the guns per capita rate, the gun homicides per capita rate will rise in proportion to the percentage of the African/Latin population in the general population.

Labels:

114 Comments:

Anonymous @. PERLINE December 21, 2012 6:46 AM  

Good Research.

Anonymous Idle Spectator December 21, 2012 6:46 AM  

Raciss!!!

Anonymous Idle Spectator December 21, 2012 6:53 AM  

Vox vox vox! We need another Diversity Rocket for this blog post. Like last time when we had Nicolas Cage taking out a black man with a rocket attack.

Diversity Rocket kills Arab men in True Lies

I can smell that diversity cooking.

Anonymous Idle Spectator December 21, 2012 6:56 AM  

there is an increasing number of blacks in toronto and the murder rate is up within black communities. the murder rate is high in winnipeg as well.

Canada is cold...


Global warming?

Anonymous James December 21, 2012 7:04 AM  

Two thoughts:

(A) Isn't the easiest public policy decision based on your data simply to ban Blacks and Latinos from owning guns? Since forced immigration is an anti-libertarian as gun control, why not simplify the debate by asking "control whose guns?" All Americans are equal, but others are, of course, more equal than others.

(B) Given that religiosity is higher among Blacks and Latinos, I think your argument could be adapted by our New Atheist friends, were they brave enough to try it (it's like Harris' loopy Red State / Blue State argument, only with the data to back it!) Do you think PZ or Dawkins have the mettle for it?

Anonymous scoobius dubious December 21, 2012 7:15 AM  

I seem to recall that the rate of gun deaths in Europe circa 1914-1945 was rather high.

Anonymous scoobius dubious December 21, 2012 7:16 AM  

"Isn't the easiest public policy decision based on your data simply to ban Blacks and Latinos from owning guns?"

I can make it even easier. The easiest public policy, quite clearly, is to ban blacks and Latinos.

Blogger Duke of Earl December 21, 2012 7:21 AM  

But then who would vote for Obama?

Anonymous daddynichol December 21, 2012 7:28 AM  

It shouldn't take long for the emotional hand wringing to begin with something along the line, "..but..but..we've GOT TO DO SOMETHING FOR THE SAKE OF THE CHILDREN!!".

I linked this blog posting to my FB account and now waiting for the expected hysteria.

Anonymous DennisP2112 December 21, 2012 7:32 AM  

But then who would vote for Obama?

The way the Republicans are fashioning themselves to look like the Democrats, there will be enough of the other races to vote the next goofball into office in 2016.

Blogger El Borak December 21, 2012 7:39 AM  

One other factor to consider: Suicide. According to the American Society for the Prevention of Suicide:

...83 percent of gun-related deaths in these homes are the result of a suicide, often by someone other than the gun owner.
Firearms are used in more suicides than homicides.
Death by firearms is the fastest growing method of suicide.
Firearms account for 50 percent of all suicides.


So all these guns in American homes must be causing suicides, right? Nope, according the hyper-accurate Wikipedia, America has the 38th highest suicide rate, well behind "civilized" countries like Switzerland (16), Belgium (18), Finland (19), and even happy socialist Sweden, Norway, and Denmark. Because other countries don't have guns, they are forced to stick their heads in ovens and throw themselves off buildings. No guns, but they manage to off themselves nonetheless.

Anonymous Idle Spectator December 21, 2012 7:57 AM  

Japan is the best example that suicide has no connection to violent crime or guns. People off themselves by jumping in front of trains, commit group suicides in forests at the foot of Mt. Fuji, and by combining cleaning products at home to produce poison gas for inhalation. It is violence turned inward.

Anonymous Stilicho December 21, 2012 7:57 AM  

A rather remarkable comparison. Any chance this makes it into your final columns?

Anonymous Athor Pel December 21, 2012 8:08 AM  

"James December 21, 2012 7:04 AM
...
(A) Isn't the easiest public policy decision based on your data simply to ban Blacks and Latinos from owning guns? ...
"




What you are describing is where the precedent for our present gun laws came from, the forbidding of gun ownership to blacks in the south.


See where that got us?

Yeah, not a good idea.

Anonymous DT December 21, 2012 8:09 AM  

Black vs. white homicide rates:
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/race.cfm

What is the gun death and crime rate in the U.S. excluding blacks and Hispanics? Does the government collect and publish enough data for us to compute this? I'm curious as to how it compares with all the hippie happy socialist controlled gun (and European white) nations.

Almost forgot...RACISSSSSS!!!!!!

Anonymous scoobius dubious December 21, 2012 8:09 AM  

The problem with all of this is, ultimately, Piers Morgan having a fit of the vapors and embarrassingly abusing his guests notwithstanding, that there is no debate, none at all, there are no grounds for discussion. The right of the people shall not be infringed. Case closed.

Recent headline in a major US newspaper: "Obama weighs options regarding guns." Under the law, under the Constitution, which I believe is held to be "the supreme Law of the land," Obama HAS NO options to weigh. None. Case dismissed with extreme prejudice, and a gob of spit in your eye.

I don't care what the statistics on gun crime are in Austria or Canada, with reference to America. I don't care what they are in the Congo or in Zimbabwe. America is not Canada, Austria, or Zimbabwe (yet).

A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the Security of a free State, the right of the People, to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Period.

There are two important points here:
the first one, as I keep saying, is cosmic, and has a universal writ throughout the United States: the right of the People... shall NOT BE INFRINGED. By anyone. End of discussion. If you don't like it, then amend the Bill of Rights in the consitutionally prescribed manner. If you can't or won't, then there is NOTHING ELSE TO DISCUSS.

You would like to ban guns. I would like to enslave negroes. I think we both have a constitutional roadblock on our hands, right?

The second point, which is effectively mooted by the first point but which I'll address anyway out of charity, is this:
the Right of the People to keep and bear arms is rooted in the correct perception that this is absolutely necessary for the "security" (recall "that to secure these Rights" see Jefferson --> Declaration --> Locke) of a "free" "State". "Security" here does NOT mean "safety". It means to keep Liberty secure and in good working order. It means that Americans reserve the right to turn against their government, with arms, if they observe that the very same government is trampling Liberty; and frankly speaking it is an utter miracle that they have not done so yet.

In other words, the right of the people does not derive from their desire to hunt, or even from their desire to protect themselves from lunatics who wish to kill children. It derives from the need to defend and secure Liberty itself.

Let us use the very words of the leftists against them...

"Political power comes from the barrel of a gun." -- Mao Tse-tung.

Yes, leftists. True. Exactly.

"People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people." -- slogan of movie poster for the unwatchable leftist classic "V for Vendetta," which popularized the Guy Fawkes mask at #OWS.

Yes, leftists. Yes, exactly. The leftist government of Obama and his lawless crew should be afraid, very afraid, of the people. That is the whole point. If they were more afraid, they would tread more lightly.

"You get it?" -- Phil Ochs

Anonymous Roundtine December 21, 2012 8:14 AM  

(A) Isn't the easiest public policy decision based on your data simply to ban Blacks and Latinos from owning guns? Since forced immigration is an anti-libertarian as gun control, why not simplify the debate by asking "control whose guns?" All Americans are equal, but others are, of course, more equal than others.

This would never pass today. More plausible is to allow gun bans based on population density. This does two things. One, it gives liberals their gun control. Two, it creates a justification for rural areas to ban internal immigration: defense of second amendment rights.

Blogger mmaier2112 December 21, 2012 8:15 AM  

Well done, Vox.

Anonymous Hash Tag December 21, 2012 8:31 AM  

Why are there so many Columbine style massacres in American though?

These tend to be committed by whites more than racial minorities.

By some of the logic that pro-gun people use "these massacres tend to happen in places where they know others won't have guns to defend themselves" they should happen more frequently in other nations. Where there are less guns available to the general public and even the police. But they don't. Even when you adjust for population size its still much, much more likely to happen in America than any other nation.

Anonymous The Great Martini December 21, 2012 8:34 AM  


The specific question that was asked was why the USA has a higher rate of gun homicides, 2.97 per 100,000 population than Canada, at only 0.51 per 100,000.



42% of US gun homicides are committed by whites, so even if you take that sub-population, it is quite higher per capita than Canada. US has roughly three gun homicides per 100K and Canada 1/2 per 100K. We might even assume Canada would score better as a purely homogeneous culture, but let's compare white America to Canada. 42 percent of 3 is 1.26, as compared to 0.5. Multiply 0.5 by the gun prevalence factor, 88.8/30.8, and you get 1.44. Not exactly 1.26, but rather suggestive.

Anonymous DT December 21, 2012 8:38 AM  

42% of US gun homicides are committed by whites,

I know I posted the link, but something that's missing from that report is the definition of "white". Does it include Hispanics? What happens when you remove them from the equation, or does that data not exist?

Anonymous rienzi December 21, 2012 8:42 AM  

The manufacture of small arms intended for the general population is one of the very few industries in the country that is booming. Factories running 24/7, 365 days a year. Sometimes I wonder if that's not the real reason for the gun ban hysteria.

Anonymous DrW December 21, 2012 8:43 AM  

That's raciss.

Anonymous The Great Martini December 21, 2012 8:43 AM  

They have an "other" category, which is minuscule, so it's possible that they're lumping Hispanic in with white, I don't know.

Blogger Crowhill December 21, 2012 8:44 AM  

VD -- very interesting post. What's missing from your analysis is the percent of U.S. gun deaths among the different groups.

Anonymous VD December 21, 2012 8:46 AM  

42% of US gun homicides are committed by whites, so even if you take that sub-population, it is quite higher per capita than Canada.

No, 42 percent of US gun homicides are committed by whites and Hispanics.

They have an "other" category, which is minuscule, so it's possible that they're lumping Hispanic in with white, I don't know.

They are. I'll have a follow-up post teasing out this information on the basis of Hispanic victims.

Anonymous DonReynolds December 21, 2012 8:48 AM  

I started school while Ike was still president, so much of my life in the South has been distracted by racial issues. The big difference between the so-called Civil Rights days and today would be our ability to openly and freely discuss matters of race....that ability has almost completely disappeared. No one is allowed to discuss questions of race because any such discussions inevitably end with some people being labeled racist. In the old days, people openly admitted to being racist, but were still willing to discuss the issues and try to find a solution. Today, there are too many people who will not even admit that different races exist. They also insist there are no biological or genetic differences between the races. Race (to them) is merely a social construct by evil bigots. Heck, if it weren't for racists, no one would notice any difference at all. (Snicker)

Thank you, Vox. I appreciate that you feel free to discuss what is always the elephant sitting in the middle of the living room. Everyone else tiptoes around the issues, saying it is all because of "poverty", lack of "education", or "cultural bias" on someone's part. (These are simply lies, of course.) Savages do live in this country and they do act the part. Fortunately for many people, the vicious tend to victimize their own race mostly. That does not make it acceptable but perhaps this is the process by which people change for the better.

Anonymous jack December 21, 2012 8:53 AM  

Now, Vox, you know, good and well, that facts and logic do not play well with the liberal 'brights'.
It would be interesting to see how long the 'bright' class would condemn wide spread gun ownership it they were all banned, then, somehow, confiscated without the country becoming a revolutionary wasteland. Then,few if any, guns around, except in the hands of how many police? Right now some 800K. Lets be generous and triple that to 2 million. Can 2 million police or even 10 million, protect all these 'brights' better than the knowledge of many more millions of armed citizens in the minds of the criminals and nut cases?
Its like that revealing story out this last week or two about the mall shooter offing himself after just seeing an armed citizen with his concealed carry firearm drawn. The citizen didn't even have to fire. Saved the citizen an expensive cartridge as well.
Win, Win.

Anonymous Rally December 21, 2012 8:57 AM  

Those types of incidents may not be as common in Europe, but when unleashed on an unarmed country they are more lethal. Breivik (sp?) killed more than Klebold/Harris, Lanza, and Cho combined.

Anonymous VD December 21, 2012 9:00 AM  

The numbers indicate that Hispanics probably account for two-thirds of the "white" killers.


In California, in 1998, Hispanics—

while only 30 percent of the total population, accounted for 44 percent of all homicide victims;

were murdered with a firearm in 77 percent of cases in which a weapon could be determined; and,

handguns were used in 70 percent of all Hispanic homicides.

In Texas, in 1998—

37 percent of homicide victims were of Hispanic heritage;
of these victims, 67 percent were killed with firearms

Anonymous Roundtine December 21, 2012 9:02 AM  

Breivik was politically motivated. He went to war.

Anonymous Noah B. December 21, 2012 9:05 AM  

"These tend to be committed by whites more than racial minorities."

Physician prescribed psychiatric drugs are the likely culprit. Whites disproportionately take these, for whatever reason.

Anonymous VD December 21, 2012 9:14 AM  

If the California study is used as a basis and we assume Latins usually kill Latins, then Latins commit 23.9 percent of all firearms homicide. This means, according to the 20-year black/white gun homicide rate, the 9,146 gun homicides in 2010 break down as follows:

Blacks: 5,030
Latins: 2,186
Whites: 1,930

That indicates a white gun homicide rate of 0.63 per 100,000, very much in line with the European norm. And the Latin one is 4.3, higher than the European norms, but less than half that of Mexico.

Anonymous VD December 21, 2012 9:20 AM  

The African-American gun homicide rate is 12.5 per 100,000, which is higher than Zimbabwe, but lower than South Africa.

Anonymous The Great Martini December 21, 2012 9:24 AM  

These tend to be committed by whites more than racial minorities.

The cynical interpretation of recent events is that white suburban Americans are sick of being slaughtered by crazy, young, white men. While the undeniable fact is that gun violence is disproportionately large in minority groups, yet that doesn't seem to have triggered gun control. The fact is that the horrifying, show-stopping events seem to involve white slaughtering white. That just seems to be the way it works. But if gun control makes sense for white mass murders, doesn't it make even more sense for all those black and brown people, where the sentiment here seems to be that they just can't control themselves with guns? You can stop or deport immigrants, but outside of gun control, how do you propose to stop gun violence in young black men? You can't deport citizens of the US.

Blogger Jeremiah Nichol December 21, 2012 9:25 AM  

The Great Martini...in the source you cited do they lump in latinos with blacks or whites? Based on other data the "other" category is really small in comparison...Help me with that. I couldn't figure that one out.

Anonymous VD December 21, 2012 9:27 AM  

The Great Martini...in the source you cited do they lump in latinos with blacks or whites?

Latins are always lumped in with whites in the various crime statistics, except when they are broken out as Hispanics.

Anonymous Noah B. December 21, 2012 9:31 AM  

"The fact is that the horrifying, show-stopping events seem to involve white slaughtering white."

The media is doing everything they can to exploit this tragedy and spread fear. This is their great opportunity and they are doing the best to milk it for all it's worth.

"But if gun control makes sense for white mass murders..."

Stop right there, you slippery SOB. You've just equated all brown and black people with mass murderers. That's despicable.

Anonymous Not Madison December 21, 2012 9:35 AM  

Yes. That consteetootion. We've had it for over 200 years. And every time the government choose to ignore it, a few peeps peep...

But, but, but... we have a consteetootion! It's the law of the land. See, it says so right here! They can't do that! How dare they!

Yep.

Any idea why they ignore you?

Anonymous The One December 21, 2012 9:37 AM  

So this post suggest Bloomberg policy decision is correct within his own fiefdom. That is depressing.

Anonymous Noah B. December 21, 2012 9:37 AM  

"... where the sentiment here seems to be that they just can't control themselves with guns?"

And no, that isn't the rational conclusion at all. The murder rate among hispanics in this country is LOWER than that in Mexico. If more guns resulted in more murders, we would see the opposite. Get it?

Anonymous daddynichol December 21, 2012 9:41 AM  

POSTING NOTE: Those of you posting as "Anonymous", pick a name in the "Name/URL" profile catagory. You DON'T have to provide a URL, just a name. It cuts down on the confusion.

Also, Firefox does not let me post comments for some reason and I've yet to figure it out (it used to), but Explorer works just fine. I don't know if anyone else has that problem, but I just wanted to throw that out there.

Now, back to the discussion.

Anonymous Noah B. December 21, 2012 9:43 AM  

"So this post suggest Bloomberg policy decision is correct within his own fiefdom. That is depressing."

No. Not at all. The post suggests that there are varying racial and cultural baselines for crime rates. Regardless of race, the evidence provided in this post indicates that more citizens being armed results in less crime.

And New York has consistently under-reported crime for years.

Anonymous Heh December 21, 2012 9:49 AM  

We know that liberals, who are always intellectually dishonest, will howl that the CT killer was white, so that invalidates anything you say about blacks and Hispanics with guns.

Anonymous Stephen J. December 21, 2012 9:50 AM  

Is there anything that separates out black/Hispanic gun crimes by economic level and family integrity? I would not be at all surprised to find that Hispanic or black families which are (a) intact, with both biological parents, and (b) have at least a modicum of stable economic prosperity score far lower for gun violence than their ethnicities at large.

I think this is characterized as Reynold's Maxim: "Subsidizing the markers of middle-class success does not produce the character traits required to preserve that success independently."

Anonymous DT December 21, 2012 9:52 AM  

VD - thanks for teasing out the data.

So the primary factor is race, not availability of guns. Bet you won't see that on the evening news...

Anonymous DT December 21, 2012 9:55 AM  

Is there anything that separates out black/Hispanic gun crimes by economic level and family integrity? I would not be at all surprised to find that Hispanic or black families which are (a) intact, with both biological parents, and (b) have at least a modicum of stable economic prosperity score far lower for gun violence than their ethnicities at large.

I would love to see this as well. I imagine intact, economically stable minority families would have lower rates of gun crime. But I have a sad suspicion it still wouldn't match the white European rate.

Anonymous Jason December 21, 2012 9:56 AM  

If you look at crime in the USA by race (http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_43.html) you discover some very interesting things ...

* All Crime -> Blacks are responsible for 28.3%; Whites are responsible for 69.1%

* Murder -> Blacks are responsible for 49.3%; Whites for 48.7%

* Rape -> Blacks are responsible for 32.5%; Whites for 65.1%

* Sex Offences Other Than Rape -> Blacks are responsible for 23.8%; Whites for 73.5%

* Arson -> Blacks are responsible for 22.8%; Whites for 74.8%

In other words, it seems that Vox's thesis holds — Blacks are indeed responsible for more homicides than Whites. On the other hand, Whites have the lead in rape, sexual crime including crimes against children, arson (and we could add burglary and vandalism to the list).

What's interesting is that American Indians are responsible for just 1.4% of crime. So if forcible removal/expatriation is the answer, perhaps we should consider ejecting everybody apart from the country's original inhabitants — something the American Indians have been wishing for ever since the White man first set his raping, child molesting, fire lighting, thieving foot on their soil ... :-)

Anonymous Outlaw X December 21, 2012 10:04 AM  

Idle

Glad to see you alive again, was beginning to worry about you with the holidays and all. Or the Mayan Calender. Ha!

Blogger Alexander December 21, 2012 10:04 AM  

And again... meaningless as presented. If Hispanics wish to be recognized as a separate cultural entity - especially on all the fun affirmative action programs and other government handouts - then the least they can do is own that identity when it comes to criminal statistics.

When one says 'white', everyone's mind goes to the WASP. Except apparently when it's convenient not to.

Anonymous Miguel D'Anconia December 21, 2012 10:12 AM  

That is precisely why I plan to eventually relocate where there are minimal blacks and Hispanics. Just as a matter of personal safety. Where I live in the Albuquerque, NM area, most of the violent crime is committed by either a black or a Mexican. Facts are facts.

Anonymous Outlaw X December 21, 2012 10:16 AM  

Yeah the doctors forms in which I get to fill out a lot of them ask if I am White/Hipanic or other required by state law. Still don't know what that's about since I have already answered the race question as White.

Anonymous Outlaw X December 21, 2012 10:23 AM  

That is precisely why I plan to eventually relocate where there are minimal blacks and Hispanics.

Stay close to the Hispanics unless you enjoy mowing your own lawn. The blacks are afraid to come down my street for some unknown reason.

Anonymous O.C. December 21, 2012 10:30 AM  

> Why are there so many Columbine style massacres in American though?
> These tend to be committed by whites more than racial minorities.

The explanation I heard from a person of color was that in the 'hood, everyone knows what gunfire sounds like and they're smart enough to scatter or take cover when some crazy motherf***er starts shooting. But white people aren't that smart, so they run towards the noise, to see what's going on.

Anonymous The other skeptic December 21, 2012 10:35 AM  

"The fact is that the horrifying, show-stopping events seem to involve white slaughtering white."

You forgot the blacks who slaughter whites, like Thornton.

You also forgot the black gangs who torture and kill whites.

The main slime media does not like to report such events unless they can claim that it was revenge for racism or some such.

Anonymous Bob December 21, 2012 10:41 AM  

Maybe it's also because Whites tend to commit more dramatic crimes — Stalin or Hitler, for example, make the average African tinpot dictator look like an amateur. Whites commit gun crime less frequently but wow, when we do it, we really go for it.

Anonymous Wendy December 21, 2012 10:42 AM  

What's interesting is that American Indians are responsible for just 1.4% of crime.

What percentage of the population are American Indian?

Blogger Jeremiah Nichol December 21, 2012 10:44 AM  

Thanks VD...on the explanation of latins/whites grouping...Interesting how we are all grouped together when most of latins in the US and whites in the US are from different parts of the planet. Why do we even talk race at all then? The stats are meaningless then. Nothing is really black and white anyway.

Anonymous Outlaw X December 21, 2012 10:46 AM  

The explanation I heard from a person of color was that in the 'hood, everyone knows what gunfire sounds like and they're smart enough to scatter or take cover when some crazy motherf***er starts shooting. But white people aren't that smart, so they run towards the noise, to see what's going on.

After tucking the women and children away that is the second thing I would do, go straight for the gun fire.

Anonymous jay c December 21, 2012 10:47 AM  

Maybe it's also because Whites tend to commit more dramatic crimes — Stalin or Hitler, for example, make the average African tinpot dictator look like an amateur. Whites commit gun crime less frequently but wow, when we do it, we really go for it.

This is a function of the European propensity for order. The Chinese and Japanese are pretty good at mass murder for the same reasons, but they aren't good a individual acts of mass murder because they aren't so good at individual anything. Africans can't usually manage it because they can't get the background chaos to a manageable level.

Anonymous Cryan Ryan December 21, 2012 10:55 AM  

" On the other hand, Whites have the lead in rape, sexual crime including crimes against children, arson"... Jason

Jason, are you so blitheringly stupid that you don't take into account the percentage of each group of the total population?

That's a yes or no question.

Anonymous Bull Connor December 21, 2012 10:59 AM  

Lawd. Us crackers blew up a couple of black church girls, shot a couple of jews & a Northern agitator & buried 'em in a damn dam, wouldn't let some nigra woman with smelly feet ride at the front of the bus, and we still getting beat over the head about that stuff half a century later.

It's just less of a hassle to shoot white folk.

Anonymous jay c December 21, 2012 11:17 AM  

Jason wrote,

If you look at crime in the USA by race (http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_43.html) you discover some very interesting things ...

* All Crime -> Blacks are responsible for 28.3%; Whites are responsible for 69.1%

* Murder -> Blacks are responsible for 49.3%; Whites for 48.7%

* Rape -> Blacks are responsible for 32.5%; Whites for 65.1%

* Sex Offences Other Than Rape -> Blacks are responsible for 23.8%; Whites for 73.5%

* Arson -> Blacks are responsible for 22.8%; Whites for 74.8%

In other words, it seems that Vox's thesis holds — Blacks are indeed responsible for more homicides than Whites. On the other hand, Whites have the lead in rape, sexual crime including crimes against children, arson (and we could add burglary and vandalism to the list).

What's interesting is that American Indians are responsible for just 1.4% of crime. So if forcible removal/expatriation is the answer, perhaps we should consider ejecting everybody apart from the country's original inhabitants — something the American Indians have been wishing for ever since the White man first set his raping, child molesting, fire lighting, thieving foot on their soil ... :-)


Let me fix this post for you, Jason.

If you look at crime in the USA by race (http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_43.html) you discover some very interesting things ...

* All Crime -> Blacks are responsible for 28.3%; Whites and Hispanics combined are responsible for 69.1%

* Murder -> Blacks are responsible for 49.3%; Whites and Hispanics combined for 48.7%

* Rape -> Blacks are responsible for 32.5%; Whites and Hispanics combined for 65.1%

* Sex Offences Other Than Rape -> Blacks are responsible for 23.8%; Whites and Hispanics combined for 73.5%

* Arson -> Blacks are responsible for 22.8%; Whites and Hispanics combined for 74.8%

In other words, it seems that Vox's thesis holds — Blacks are indeed responsible for more homicides than Whites and Hispanics combined. On the other hand, Whites do not have the lead in rape, sexual crime including crimes against children, arson (and we could add burglary and vandalism to the list) so long as you do not define "white" to include "Hispanic". If you separate white from hispanic, then European Whites commit less crime across the board than any other demographic except Asians and Jews.

What's interesting is that American Indians are responsible for just 1.4% of crime, even though they make up 1.6% of the total population, meaning they commit fewer crimes than blacks (and probably hispanics), but more than whites. So if forcible removal/expatriation is the answer, perhaps we should consider ejecting everybody except the whites, asians, and jews. :-)

Anonymous Hash Tag December 21, 2012 11:47 AM  

Putting all European Whites together is ridiculous though. Irish and Italians commit crimes at much higher rates than other white ethnic groups. People of Scottish have the lowest crimes rates amongst all ethnic and racial groups in America.

Jews are highly over represented in white collar crimes such as fraud.

Blogger Justthisguy December 21, 2012 11:52 AM  

Daddy, do what I just did; right-click on that tiny box next to "Comment as", then click on "this frame", and then click on "open in new window." This should give you a full-width comment box with a choice of commenting name.

Anonymous Van December 21, 2012 12:04 PM  

Alexander-

Re. White/hiapanic/WASP; it's more than separating cultural hispanics out from the common definition of white. The little 5'4' brown people standing in front of Home Depot, with all or mostly Aztec ancestry, are "white" when they commit crime.

Even Census data on racial background of hispanics is unreliable, as it uses self-reported identity, and many Aztecs call themselves white, despite having little to no European ancestry.

Anonymous Jack Amok December 21, 2012 12:17 PM  

Why are there so many Columbine style massacres in American though?

Because we stopped institutionalizing crazy people around 1970.

Anonymous Hash Tag December 21, 2012 12:35 PM  

"Because we stopped institutionalizing crazy people around 1970."

So did Europe and these type of events rarely happen there.

Anonymous Jack Amok December 21, 2012 12:56 PM  

So did Europe and these type of events rarely happen there.

Actually, that's not true. Since 1980, the US has had 67 mass murder incidents while Europe has had 70.

Blogger ajw308 December 21, 2012 12:58 PM  

Why are there so many Columbine style massacres in American though?

Since '79, Great Britain has had Dunblane, Cumbria and Hungerford. At 5x the population, you'd expect the US to have had 15 Columbia style massacres if things were equal, but to live up to our reputation as a violent country, it should be much much higher, yet I don't think we're there.

Blogger Jamie-R December 21, 2012 1:14 PM  

Breivik was politically motivated. He went to war.

Remove race and his political actions to an end goal were exactly that of Mandela's in the 1960s. The difference is he won't get out of jail and be celebrated for it.

Anonymous Hash Tag December 21, 2012 1:25 PM  

Actually, that's not true. Since 1980, the US has had 67 mass murder incidents while Europe has had 70.

The entire population of Europe is much more than the United States.

Show me where you got that stat from.

Also the definition of mass murder has to be classified here. Incidents where say more than 6 people (who are not related by family) are killed by someone seem much rarer in Europe.

Anonymous VD December 21, 2012 1:30 PM  

The entire population of Europe is much more than the United States. Show me where you got that stat from.

I smell a Fighting Withdrawal coming on....

Anonymous VD December 21, 2012 1:33 PM  

What is much more relevant, Europe has far fewer Africans and Latins.

Anonymous Anonymous December 21, 2012 1:35 PM  

@jay c: "The Chinese and Japanese are pretty good at mass murder for the same reasons, but they aren't good a individual acts of mass murder because they aren't so good at individual anything."

Actually there are quite a few Chinese individual acts of mass murders. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers:_Asia

Until Breivik, the world record in rampage body count was held by a South Korean. In China, there are a lot of very little known rampage killings against government officials -- blowing up buildings, burning officials alive after locking them in a room, attacks against police stations (one guy offed half a dozen cops armed only with a knife!) et al.

Anonymous Hash Tag December 21, 2012 1:42 PM  

At stat I can find says America has had 31 school shootings since Columbine and there's only been 14 in rest of the world in that same period. But it doesn't classify what constitutes a school shooting.

It seems to be backed up on the wikipedia page that lists worldwide School shootings though.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shooting#Notable_school_shootings


Obviously massacres in America in recent times are Columbia, Columbine, Virginia Tech, Amish school shooting and 2011 Tucson shooting.

Anonymous Jack Amok December 21, 2012 1:46 PM  

Hash Tag, I already cited the source in the Brother Karl thread, but it's on page 2 of the comments so maybe you missed it. Here is my post from that thread:

----

Using Wikipedia (which of course is beyond reproach, groan), I count 67 mass murder sprees in the US since 1980 (not counting incidents at military bases involving soliders), and 70 in Europe during that same time (again, not counting those involving soliders on base).

The total population of Europe is slightly larger than the US, so the per-captia mayhem seems to be roughly the same.

Now, when you consider that the US has far more mentally disturbed people free on the streets, it's astonishing there haven't been more incidents in the US.

For completeness sake, Wikipedia uses this definition:

To be included in this list at least one of the following must apply:
-Incidents with six or more dead (excluding the perpetrator)
-Incidents with a double digit number of victims (dead plus injured)
-Mass murders by intention with at least a dozen victims (dead plus injured)

Anonymous Jack Amok December 21, 2012 1:50 PM  

The US has had more school shootings (though Germany has had an awful lot), but then Europe doesn't have very many Unicorn Farm shootings either.

Unicorn Farms? Europe has almost as many unicorns as school kids. They stopped having kids, the US hasn't. Hard to have school shootings without school kids.

Anonymous Hash Tag December 21, 2012 1:52 PM  

"The entire population of Europe is much more than the United States. Show me where you got that stat from.

I smell a Fighting Withdrawal coming on...."

I miss quoted him. The statement was mean't to be, show me where you got that stat from in relation to his "Actually, that's not true. Since 1980, the US has had 67 mass murder incidents while Europe has had 70" sentence.

Also according to the United Nations the entire population of Europe is 740,021,000. So more than double the United States. When you compare his 67 to 70 stat in relation to that information, there are clearly far more massacres on average in America.

Anonymous Jack Amok December 21, 2012 1:59 PM  

Back to my original reply, most of Europe doesn't let crazy people roam free. We do.

Anonymous VD December 21, 2012 2:07 PM  

Also according to the United Nations the entire population of Europe is 740,021,000. So more than double the United States. When you compare his 67 to 70 stat in relation to that information, there are clearly far more massacres on average in America.

Yes, and there are far more Blacks and Latins in the USA than in Europe. Also, it makes no sense to compare a continent to a country. If you want to make a fair comparison accounting for racial demographics and population size, compare the European country with the most massacres to the USA less any massacres by Blacks and Latins. Then correct for population size.

Anonymous Hash Tag December 21, 2012 2:07 PM  

"most of Europe doesn't let crazy people roam free."

Where are you getting this information from? I've never heard it said that Europe is much tougher in relation to mental illness than America is. What are these laws in Europe that protect there people from "crazies" unlike America?

Anonymous Hash Tag December 21, 2012 2:14 PM  

"Yes, and there are far more Blacks and Latins in the USA than in Europe. Also, it makes no sense to compare a continent to a country. If you want to make a fair comparison accounting for racial demographics and population size, compare the European country with the most massacres to the USA less any massacres by Blacks and Latins. Then correct for population size."

Yeah I agree. It would be hard to get this information though and you'd obviously have to cut out massacres by blacks in Europe as well.

Most of the worst massacres in recent times that took place in America, that I listed, were committed by whites though, with one Asian.

Anonymous Jack Amok December 21, 2012 2:32 PM  

Where are you getting this information from? I've never heard it said that Europe is much tougher in relation to mental illness than America is. What are these laws in Europe that protect there people from "crazies" unlike America?

Fer cryin' out loud man, d'ya know how to use google? I'm not your research bitch.

But I'll give you the numbers as of a decade ago (see if you can find where they came from).

Europe as a whole had approximately 90 people per 100,000 population institutionalized in mental facilities. The US had 20 per 100,000. Meanwhile, mental health rates in both regions are essentially identical. A European country is 4.5 times more likely to institutionalize a mentally unstable person than the US.

Going back a few decades, at the start of the 1960's, the US had approximately 600 per 100,000 in asylums. I don't have the relevant figures from Europe, so I don't know if they had similar historical rates or not (perhaps as your homework assignment, you could fill in that gap).

Anonymous Outlaw X December 21, 2012 2:35 PM  

Most of the worst massacres in recent times that took place in America, that I listed, were committed by whites though, with one Asian.

Also notice that it is white man that takes charge and stops the panic, had to do it many times as a volunteer fire man. Just raise your voice and spout commands the sheep will follow.

Anonymous Noah B. December 21, 2012 2:36 PM  

The Beslan massacre: more people killed in a single incident than in every school shooting in the US over the last two decades.

If only Russia had acted sooner to pass laws against terrorists being armed, this incident might have been avoided.

Anonymous Outlaw X December 21, 2012 2:41 PM  

Noah B.

RT Is telling the American People to disarm today. In case anyone hasn't been paying attention.

Anonymous Hash Tag December 21, 2012 4:01 PM  

Why are some of use finding it hard to differentiate between organized terrorist plots with some kind of political point and the simplistic massacres of random nuts?

Anonymous scoobius dubious December 21, 2012 4:19 PM  

"Europe has far fewer Africans and Latins."

I know what you mean, of course, but just for clarity's sake: Europe is up to the gills in Latins, who are, y'know, actually Latin.

What they don't have a lot of, is Amerinds: all those short, fat, ugly, greasy, stupid, perpetually-needy hyperfertile people who are destroying America faster than you can say Dutch elm disease.

Anonymous Susan December 21, 2012 4:32 PM  

Following the logic here, does this mean Britain will have to ban large sharp implements capable of removing heads during honor killings? After all, they are welcoming a great deal of muslim immigrants and becoming a minority population in their own country.

Just curious. This has been facinating reading.

Anonymous Johnny Caustic December 21, 2012 5:41 PM  

Why are there so many Columbine style massacres in America though? These tend to be committed by whites more than racial minorities.

One of the racial differences between whites/Orientals and blacks/Latinos is their inclination to long-term planning. It's not just that the former are more capable of planning; they also seem to be more motivated to think ahead in the first place. So the white style of murder is often premeditated, whereas the black style is impulsive and "random", as the papers like to say.

To rack up scores like Lanza (or Breivik), you've got to think ahead.

Anonymous Daniel December 21, 2012 5:44 PM  

Jack Amok
Back to my original reply, most of Europe doesn't let crazy people roam free. We do.

Poppycock. We've done a tremendous job of confining those guys to the Oval Office for decades, now.

Anonymous Jack Amok December 21, 2012 6:16 PM  

Poppycock. We've done a tremendous job of confining those guys to the Oval Office for decades, now.

You're falling for the apex fallacy. You see the Loon-in-Chief always surrounded by armed guards (who are they guarding, BTW?) and assume all the other denizens are likewise contained. Wrong! I tell you. They're slipping off unminded and wreaking havoc.

Anonymous Noah B. December 21, 2012 7:11 PM  

"Why are some of use finding it hard to differentiate between organized terrorist plots with some kind of political point and the simplistic massacres of random nuts?"

It's easy enough to distinguish. But if it's your child who is murdered, it doesn't really matter if it was a terrorist trying to prove a point or a wacko who thought Meatwad told him to do it.

Blogger Miss Carnivorous December 21, 2012 7:51 PM  

Here is a link to a ridiculous article on the ridiculous mayor of San Jose Ca and his stubborn refusal to admit that his formerly fabulous city's sudden spiral into the toilet bowl is do to the influx of hispanics, many of whom were in gangs before they even moved to San Jose. The mayor actually gave a press release a few weeks ago, stating that he couldn't explain why the murder rate is so crazy high this year. I really couldn't tell if he was serious or just scared to tell the truth.
http://www.ca.allgov.com/news/unusual-news/san-jose-once-americas-safest-city-has-worst-homicide-record-in-20-years-121204?news=846371

Anonymous Anonymous December 21, 2012 9:29 PM  

The last great white hope........Sickle Cell.

Blogger TontoBubbaGoldstein December 21, 2012 9:38 PM  

To rack up scores like Lanza (or Breivik), you've got to think ahead.

Khalid Sheik Mohammed put those two to shame.

Anonymous Anonymous December 21, 2012 9:42 PM  

Whatever lower murder and mass shooting rate the euros have, they make up for it in spades every so often with world scale killing. Maybe the efforts to bring about the former lead to the latter.

Anonymous Roundtine December 21, 2012 10:01 PM  

So the white style of murder is often premeditated, whereas the black style is impulsive and "random", as the papers like to say.

Rwanda versus the Holocaust.

Anonymous Stilicho December 21, 2012 10:48 PM  

I heard a report on the radio today of 39 people in an African village being hacked to death with machetes. Hunters don't need metal weapons. Back to the stone age with ya!

Anonymous Mazianni December 21, 2012 10:51 PM  

Toronto had a homicide (of all types) rate of 1.6 per 100k in 2011. Just under 50% of the entire population is foreign born. The proportion of "blacks" and "latinos" combined is around 10%. No idea how many guns there are, but like I said earlier, ordinary people aren't clamoring for them.

So it's certainly *possible* for a large population with widely varying origins to live in peace and in close proximity. Give people reasonable economic prospects, job opportunities, equal treatment by police and the courts, etc.; it doesn't have to be a recipe for disaster.

Blogger Jamie-R December 21, 2012 11:36 PM  

They don't care about hispanics and blacks killing each other, otherwise the media would pump it out in big headlines, they care about the rednecks cause they'll actually fight the feds and the left-wing incursion into American culture one day, armour piercing bullets are for exactly that, police, federal agents and possibly military. It is easy to walk into a town when you know their weaponry can't do shit all. The risk/reward may be too high for feds to try if the weaponry is high quality.

Anonymous Well December 22, 2012 2:13 AM  

What they don't have a lot of, is Amerinds: all those short, fat, ugly, greasy, stupid, perpetually-needy hyperfertile people who are destroying America faster than you can say Dutch elm disease.

Not hyperfertile, except in comparison to the suicidally unfertile Europeans. The total fertility rate in Latin America is barely above replacement. And of course the Post recently bemoaned the falling birth rate of Hispanics in the USA.

Anonymous HanSolo December 22, 2012 3:03 AM  

70% of the US population are whites. Whites committed 71% of the mass murders. The reason why more mass murders are committed by whites is because there are more whites. See my analysis below.

So whites aren't committing a larger share of the mass murders than their total share of the population. However, they are committing a higher percentage of mass murders than they are committing conventional or low-number murders. So, I think that, yes, there is something we need to analyze in why whites and Asians are committing mass murders at a higher rate than they are low-number/conventional murders but it's not as stark either as just a white thing.

Analysis:

Here's the population breakdown of the USA:

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html

Asian 5.0%
Black 13.1%
Hispanic/Latino 16.7%
White persons not Hispanic 63.4%
Natives 1.2%
Pacific 0.2%
Reporting two races 2.3%

So, we see that whites are about 63% now but were a somewhat higher % during the last 30 years. 44 out of 62 mass killings were by whites (http://www.standard.net/stories/2012/12/21/why-are-majority-random-mass-killers-white-males). That gives 44/62=71%.

Next point. The average white-only population % over the last 30 years was higher than now, since especially hispanics have grown.

In 1980, whites (white + hispanics) were 83.1%. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_American In 1980 there were 14.5 million hispanics (http://www.nytimes.com/1988/09/07/us/us-hispanic-population-is-up-34-since-1980.html) and 226.5 million Americans so the hispanic % in 1980 was 6.4%. Subtracting this from 83.1% gives 76.7% white (no hispanic) in 1980. Let's average the 1980 and 2011 white % to get a rough estimate of the average # of whites over the last 30 years.

(76.7%+63%)/2=70%

So 70% of the US population are whites. Whites committed 71% of the mass murders. The reason why more mass murders are committed by whites is because there are more whites.

Anonymous HanSolo December 22, 2012 3:05 AM  

I should clarify my first sentence:

Roughly 70% of the population over the last 30 years was white and 71% of the mass murders over the last 30 years were committed by whites.

Anonymous HanSolo December 22, 2012 3:27 AM  

Whites averaged about 70% of the population over the last 30 years and committed about 70% of the mass murders so I don't really see it is a WHITE thing any more or less than that the USA has been 70% white over the last 30 years. The interesting thing though is that since whites commit a much lower % of the total number of murders as compared to their population then why are the few dozen that go postal doing so (Asians seem to be doing so too)?

This link http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/race.cfm shows that whites (and this includes hispanics) committed 45.8% of the murders from 1976-2005 (yes, these years are off by 5 years from the last 30 years but close enough to give an idea). If you subtract out the hispanic murderers from this then it will probably take it down to very roughly 40% are non-hispanic whites. So, ~70% of the mass murderers are white compared to ~40% of the overall murderers.

So, it is interesting that whites make up a higher % of mass murderers than they do of regular murderers (and that deserves attention) but to say that the phenomenon of mass murder is more white than any other race doesn't seem accurate. It seems that Asians are contributing quite highly relative to their % of the population (but this is just based on the recent two so I would need to look at the race of the 18 mass murders that were not by whites to really see who committed those).

Anonymous HanSolo December 22, 2012 4:20 AM  

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map?page=2

This gives the names of the 62 mass killers. Unfortunately it doesn't give a photo of everyone. I've identified 7 so far as black but you can't tell by their names so I've looked up pictures of everyone (you'd need 8 to have them be equal to their 13% of the population, there might be 1 more black since I didn't google every name, so blacks seem to be contributing nearly as much as the whites are). What does stand out is that there are 6 Asians (~10% of the 62) but they're only 5% of US pop.

Anonymous HanSolo December 22, 2012 4:21 AM  

Typo: I would have to look up pictures of everyone but I didn't.

Anonymous HanSolo December 22, 2012 4:45 AM  

Vox, if your assumptions about Latino murder rates are right then that would drop the white murderer % lower than the 40% I said above and make it interesting to understand why whites are doing mass murders at the same level as their overall population percentage but roughly 2 or even 3 times higher than they commit conventional/low-number murders.

Anonymous HanSolo December 22, 2012 5:54 AM  

Okay, upon googling more names of the 62 mass murderers, I find a total of 10 black men. That makes 16% and slightly higher than their percentage of the population. Percentage of latino mass murderers in the US is much less than their population. Asian much higher.

Here's a website that shows the photos of 8 of the black mass murderers.

http://www.vdare.com/articles/the-fulford-file-jezebel?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+vdareblog+(VDARE.com%3A+Blog+Articles)

1 is shown on the Mother Jones page already:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map?page=2

And, #10, Silvio Leyva was a Cuban-born black man.

Anonymous Svigor January 04, 2013 1:24 PM  

Why are there so many Columbine style massacres in American though?

Your question assumes there are, but of course, there aren't. Bee stings and lightning strikes both outpace mass shootings as a cause of death in the US.

Of course, drunk driving kills 12,000 people and nobody gives a shit; there's certainly nobody calling for a ban on booze or hard liquor to "SAVE THE CHILDREN!!!"

Anonymous Svigor January 04, 2013 1:50 PM  

European Murder Rates Compared to the United States: Demographics vs Guns

In other words, it seems that Vox's thesis holds — Blacks are indeed responsible for more homicides than Whites. On the other hand, Whites have the lead in rape, sexual crime including crimes against children, arson (and we could add burglary and vandalism to the list).

The rates are the only thing of real significance here. And blacks handily excel whites on all rates of violent or non-white-collar crime. The black rape rate was 6.5 times the white rape rate, last time I checked, and that was their slimmest lead.

perhaps we should consider ejecting everybody apart from the country's original inhabitants

The country's original constituents are long dead, but they were all European. There was no country here until they built it.

The entire population of Europe is much more than the United States. Show me where you got that stat from.

The gov't doesn't keep stats on mass murder. This is probably because they know the numbers are statistically insignificant. The "mass murder epidemic" is entirely a construction of the mass media. It gives them ratings and an excuse to push their soft-totalitarian agenda.

Whatever lower murder and mass shooting rate the euros have, they make up for it in spades every so often with world scale killing. Maybe the efforts to bring about the former lead to the latter.

Actually, blacks have us whipped there, too:

The death rate of the Rwandan Genocide far exceeded the death rate of the Jewish Holocaust

Blogger Becca Blossoms April 14, 2013 2:21 AM  

America's death zones hits If this is the state of our nation during relative peacetime and perceived prosperity, imagine what it’ll look like in the midst of financial, economic or political turmoil. Americans living east of the Mississippi River will likely experience the brunt of it. But anyone residing in and around any major U.S. city will, likewise, have a tough road ahead of them. So for want to know more about America's death zones hits being with us....

Blogger Becca Blossoms April 14, 2013 2:21 AM  

America's death zones hits If this is the state of our nation during relative peacetime and perceived prosperity, imagine what it’ll look like in the midst of financial, economic or political turmoil. Americans living east of the Mississippi River will likely experience the brunt of it. But anyone residing in and around any major U.S. city will, likewise, have a tough road ahead of them. So for want to know more about America's death zones hits being with us....

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts