Boko Haram Burns Kids Alive

A survivor hidden in a tree says he watched Boko Haram extremists firebomb huts and heard the screams of children among people burned to death in the latest attack by Nigeria's homegrown Islamic extremists.

And,

The violence continued as three female suicide bombers blew up among people who managed to flee to neighboring Gamori village, killing many people, according to a soldier at the scene who insisted on anonymity because he is not authorized to speak to journalists.

It was not known how many scores of people were killed because bodies still were being collected, including from the surrounding bushes where the insurgents hunted down fleeing villagers, according to Abba Shehu, a security guard helping collect corpse [my underlines]

I'm going to ask the question: Were any of the 3 women the "missing girls"? If so, did they blow themselves up or were they remote detonated? If they blew themselves up were they under threat of death?

Lastly; I'm sure somewhere in some university a professor is blaming some white person somewhere, or maybe the explosives. Yahoo News

Lead Poisoning in Baltimore

A few months back I mentioned the use of lead paint on products from China in Africa. The Guardian has an article on the high levels of lead paint and poisoning in mostly black Baltimore.

But Saul Kerpelman, a lawyer who has handled thousands of lead cases, says these numbers don’t really show the extent of the problem. Those numbers, he said, are calculated based on a blood lead level (BLL) of 10 micrograms per deciliter (mg/dl). But the CDC has recently determined that any amount of lead in a child’s blood can immediately and irreversibly cause brain damage. Kerpelman said that if you cut the BLL number in half to the current threshold number of 5 mg/dl, there could be as many as 4,000 cases in Baltimore last year and if the acceptable lead level were set to zero, it could be as many as 10,000 exposed children. Kerpelman said that out of the more than 4,000 cases he has dealt with, “99% are black”.

And who owns the property?

Many of the same absentee landlords come up in these cases over and over again. “If you type Stanley Rochkind into Maryland case search, his name comes up over 500 times,” Kerpelman said. One of those cases was a suit filed by Freddie Gray, who lived in a Rochkind-owned home as a young boy and tested with a blood lead level of between 11 and 19 mg/dl. He suffered from the effects of lead poisoning, which studies have linked to decreased IQ and short and long-term memory impairment, causing numerous related social problems.

Rochkind? The same Rochkind in this 2010 article?

“The consistency needs to be there in terms of fining these property owners. Honestly, some of them should be in jail. When you break a law enough times you should run the risk of coming before the judge who says you’re done,” she said.

Agreed 100%.

What I'm wondering about here is whether there is/was a situation whereby if a residence was found to have lead paint, it would mean that the occupants would have to leave. I do know that in some cases, like in Detroit with the water issues, inspectors and social workers would not report on conditions that would lead to removal (particularly of children) in order to not create a homeless situation.

On the other hand if the inspections would not result in a loss of occupancy (though I don't see how as the old paint has to be removed before new paint can be applied and anyone who's watched an HGTV show knows, you don't live in a residence while that kind of stuff is going on) then the inspector must be protecting the property owner. If that is the case, then I'd think that there could be RICO statute involvement.

Either way, Baltimore is suffering enough from low IQ persons causing mayhem. We don't need lead paint caused low IQ adding to the problem.

The Donald Strikes Back

Establishment media and politicians are shocked and awed that Donald Trump has decided to skip the last debate before the Iowa Caucuses. They are trying to say that this shows that Trump can't handle the media and therefore cannot handle being head of state. As usual the establishment is wrong.

Last week the establishment went out of it's way to go against the Republican front runner. The National Review has endangered it's 501c3 status by publishing a collection of essays AND editorializing against Trump. Many other establishment outlets have allowed their outlets to be used to do an "anybody but Trump" blitz. So what does Trump do?

In a stroke of daring genius Trump has said that if the establishment wants to shit on his candidacy then they won't be making free money off him. All the Republican debates with Trump in them have been maga hits for ratings. This means that they are very good sources of advertising revenue for the hosts. Why should Trump allow them to make money off of him while they do everything they can to stop him from winning?

Don't be distracted by the Megyn Kelly reporting. That's not the real deal here. Kelly is a useful idiot in this drama. This helps Trump among any group that is tired of the establishment status quo. With this move Trump shows that he's willing to go large when he goes against his adversaries. This is real alpha male leadership. This is leadership that doesn't respond to polls it determines the polls. To put a sports analogy out there. Trump is skating to where he wants (or sees) the puck to be, not where it is or has been.

What Is Apple's Incentive?

A few days ago I posted on the Apple Shareholder proposal about diversifying it's board and executive team. Here' the thing:

Good afternoon, everyone, and thank you very much for joining us. Today, we’re reporting Apple’s strongest financial results ever. We generated all-time record quarterly revenue of 75.9 billion dollars in the December quarter, in line with our expectations, and have 2 percent over last year’s blockbuster results.

Apple has just had it's "all time record quarterly revenue" with the "diversity" it has. What incentive does it have to make any changes whatsoever? I'm not arguing that black folks ought not be hired by Apple or aggressively recruited by Apple. What I am saying is what financial leverage, what performance leverage can the diversity crowd have to show that if Apple doesn't do what it asks, that Apple will suffer?

This is the stark, hard core, stone cold fact that many have to deal with. Without the blacks and the women, these companies make large bank and great products (when they do). When companies ride the SJW bandwagon they get like, oh, Twitter. Who wants to be the one who runs their company into the ground while saying "I was doing the right thing"?

Even the people who made that the latest Star Wars. The companies are practically 100% white. Bodega may be on screen but folks who look like him are STILL absent in the animation companies. Why? Again I ask: What is the incentive?

Because We Don't Expect Negroes To...

last year I made it a point to make it clear that Liberals generally speaking do not see black people as fully grown, responsible people. They claim that they believe in the equality of persons yet their actions show that this is not the case. The NY City Council has given us the latest example:

“We know that the system has been really rigged against communities of color in particular,” said Ms. Mark-Viverito, who has promoted such reforms and is the main sponsor of the bills. “So the question has always been, what can we do in this job to minimize unnecessary interaction with the criminal justice system, so that these young people can really fulfill their potential?”

Rigged against communities of color? Say what kinds of laws are these?

. Instead, they focus on several types of offenses covered by the city’s administrative code, including littering, public urination, public consumption of alcohol, excessive noise and breaking certain park rules.

Because negroes cannot be expected to not pee in pubic. Seriously. Had this woman simply wanted to remove offenses because she thought them to simply be unnecessary then she would have said so. But no, Laws against peeing in public are "rigged against communities of color" because? Negroes cannot be expected to not pee in public. That's the only reason you can give for the statement "rigged against communities of color"

You know what a "rigged" law is? Man-spreading. Which of course a "person of color" was the first to be fined for.

But laws against littering? Well everyone knows that Negroes can't help but litter. It's RACIST to expect Negroes to not litter and pee in public. Oh and park rules. EVERYBODY knows Negroes aren't capable of understanding "closed at dusk" signs in parks. And because of the systemic, institutional racism, they can't stay home and do shit like:

Homework
read
Interact with children they may have
work

Stuff like that. But no, it's racist to expect Negroes to follow the law. Those laws are racist and made by white heterosexual men with the purpose of "rigging" against "communities of color."

Since these folks allegedly wish to "fulfill their potential". How about insisting and expecting that they follow the law? Not pee in public, smoke in public, drop shit in the street and stay out the park after dark?

Jews Leave France in Record Numbers

Ashdod, Israel (CNN)Yoav Krief remembers the day he knew it was time to move to Israel: January 9, 2015.

It was a Friday. Four Jews had just been killed in the Hyper Cacher, a kosher supermarket in Paris, two days after the Charlie Hebdo attack. One of them was Krief's friend.

"I was not good, really not good," Krief says of how he felt at the time. "I talked to my mom, and I said, 'We must go to Israel. We need to go to Israel.'"

CNN Two points:

1) These same media outlets like to tell us that the greatest threat to France and the french is FN.

2) BLM folks in America. If it's so bad, why haven't they moved to any Caribbean country or Africa? Taking the example of the Jews in France. People who find a situation intolerable, move to places where they feel safer, so do BLM people REALLY feel so threatened by police?

Here there is a feeling of security that no longer exists in France. Twenty years ago, maybe yes. But since the year 2000, there no longer is that feeling of security in France."

Say, what has been happening to the population of France since around 2000? Who knows, maybe it's not the FN that are the real anti-semites. Oui?

Diversity For Thee

I've commented on how certain tech companies like to talk about diversity when their leadership isn't. Apple is one of those companies. Today I read that it feels that the call to diversify it's ranks with colored people is an "unduly burden".

Last year, Apple CEO Tim Cook sang the praises of a diverse workforce. He said diversity is a "readily solvable issue" that can be fixed.

I'm sure he had a Staples "easy" button with him when he said it too.

but Apple's board of directors opposes a new proposal to increase diversity among its board and senior management.

The proposal, submitted by Apple shareholder Antonio Avian Maldonado, would require an accelerated recruitment policy to change the company's organizational makeup.

I haven't seen the actual proposal so I can't comment on the actual details of the proposal but it is worth noting the following:

Apple's executive team, like many of the other major tech firms, is overwhelmingly white and male. Out of 18 positions, there are three women -- two of whom are black. The other 15 roles are filed by white men.

One should note that the two black female executives are in HR and "Environment, Policy and Social Initiatives". Decidedly non-technicalroles in the tech company. And I'm quite certain that the latter position is a newly created one. This isn't to diminish the work that these women do, but it follows the pattern I have seen, including in my own employment, where the leadership of technology services and products are filled by Europeans or Asians. Mind you there are data related reasons for this. Europeans and Asians make up the vast majority of those with computer degrees and their share increases as you move into the more advanced degrees. Also in Apple's case not a few of the people on the executive team are long time employees who, in all fairness, earned their positions. For the complexion of Apple's executive team to change, there would have to be a long term hiring and promotion plan for non-whites and non-Asians. Good luck with that.

More Deadly Than An ISIS Inspired Shooting

These were not police involved shootings. These were not the result of "over militarized" police. These were not the result of white supremacists rolling through the hood seeing who they could lynch. These were not the results of a mentally unstable man who read up on black crime statistics. This is worse than the big two attacks by Islamic radicals in France.

On April 19, Freddie Gray’s death touched off protests and civil unrest in Baltimore. In May, the city had 42 homicides — which at that point, was among its deadliest months in decades. There were 29 homicides in June and another 45 in July. For the rest of the year, Baltimore averaged 31 homicides a month. [my underlines]

In what society is a killing a day acceptable? Where are the protests?

Statistics show that 320 victims of homicide in Baltimore were black, 19 were white, three were Hispanic and two were listed as other. There were 22 women killed.

In all, 322 adults and 22 juveniles were killed in 2015, including 10 children under the age of 10, and 12 children and teenagers from 10 to 17. Ninety-one of the homicide victims were from 18 to 24 years old, 133 were from 25 to 34, and five were 60 years old or older.

320+19+3+2+22=366. One person dead. Every. Day. And these people in the Black Lives Matter movement claim that there is no such thing as "black on black crime" as an epidemic.

The ISIS killers in France killed 128 people . Black people in Baltimore, and we're only counting Baltimore killed that many people over 5 months and doubled that number by the end of the year AND will likely do so again.

Why do we tolerate this? Today is the observation of MLK Jr's birthday. A man who said that people should be judged by the content of their character. What kind of character, both individual and group, is more outraged, is more moved to action by the death of a single person, who sold drugs in our community, while in police custody, than the genocidal levels of killings at the hands of our own children?

Now some may say "genocidal levels" is a bit strong. People often equate "genocide" with "extermination". That is not necessarily the case. One can use genocidal techniques to control a population. Genocide only requires the murder of large numbers of a given population.

In 2012 the average class size in Baltimore was 34 students. Think about that. Every month, on average and entire classroom full of black people were killed. That's worse than the worst school shooting in American history, which took the lives of 20 children.

If we look at the results and only examine the persons of school age (including college) we get 22 "juveniles" and 91 "18 to 24 year olds". That's a total of 113 persons of school age. That's 3/1/3 classrooms of dead future fathers husbands, workers, etc. gone. Poof! If we add in the 133 25-34 year olds, persons in what we consider the prime living years, that's another 4 classrooms gone. And that's THIS YEAR ALONE and in ONE CITY!

If you are a parent or a teacher, when you go to school tomorrow with your child (or to teach them), I want you to imagine that 7-8 of those classrooms full of energetic children being gone. And then imaging knowing that another 7-8 of them will be gone next year. Doesn't that bother you? Are you now seeing why the BLM has everything WRONG?

Examining Sabrina Fulton's Endorsement of H. Clinton

Everybody has a right to endorse whomever they want for president (or any other elected office). They can do so for any reason they want as well. Personally, I am of the opinion that your voting decisions ought to be private. The reason for this is that some people will attempt to bully others for not sharing their preferred candidate. In some countries, support for the "wrong" candidate can get one killed. On the other hand, I think that if you are going to publicly declare your support for a candidate your public statements as to the reasons are fair game. To this end I have to discuss the issues with Fulton's endorsement of Clinton.

Of course we know why she was picked rather than say the family of Kate Steinle. Don't know who she is? Well that's partially the point ennit?

So lets get on with it.

(CNN)Today, throughout many communities of color, our young people go about their lives feeling as if they are a target in their country. It's become a sad fact of life that senseless gun violence can strike with little or no warning, either from neighborhoods that have become flooded with firearms, or police who are too quick to resort to deadly force.

"A target in their country"? Target of whom? Isn't that a relevant question? guns do not "commit" violence. People use guns to commit violence. Who are the people committing these acts of senseless violence. The statistics, as we have shown that police are the least likely agent of death of black males in the US. Statistics also show that the vast majority of the time the people who are killed by the police were either involved in a crime or failed to follow directions. Therefore, they, the dead, are often directly responsible for their own demise by the decisions they made.

Gun violence is an epidemic that kills 33,000 men, women, boys and girls every year. On top of those needless deaths, law enforcement agencies in America kill more people in a month than many other countries' police forces kill in years.

How does Mrs. Fulton know what all 33,000 persons killed did not "need" to happen? Does Ms Fulton think that those who take a life to defend their own are wrong for doing so? And that includes police who are tasked with dealing with people whom the vast majority of us are too scared to deal with. As for other countries, we should note a few things:

1) The US has the highest level of violent crime of all western countries when we do NOT account for immigrant/refugee crimes. Where there is less crime there is less interaction with police, where there are less interactions with police there are less chances of a suspect/criminal to be killed.

2) As we have seen in Rotherham and Germany and Sweden and France, etc. European police, at the orders of their governments have been not enforcing laws when certain non-white groups commit them. In some cases police have given up on policing certain places.

3) In places such as Japan, you do not have many persons there who are not the native population AND you have a shame culture that discourages much of the criminal activity that we witness in the US. Of course in America, if you discuss cultural roots of crime you are labeled a racist/sellout depending on your ancestry.

4) Has Ms. Fulton seen the crime stats out of South Africa? Continuing:

Losing a child is any parent's worst fear. As a mother who has had to live that horrible nightmare in a very public spotlight, I hope that by speaking out, it will help focus some of that light onto a path that can help our nation find its way out of this darkness.

People who's worst fear is to lose a child does everything in their power to make sure the environment that they live in is safe and that their kids are properly socialized. Fact is that for a lot of parents in "communities of color" their worst fear is their kid being "soft".

Last week, President Barack Obama took some important steps that included strengthening the background check system for purchasing guns without diminishing our Second Amendment rights. I was glad to see these actions put in place, and was moved by the tears of not just our President but of a father who clearly understands my anguish.

None of the "actions" taken by Obama would have changed a single shooting, including the one that took Ms. Fulton's son's life. Of course in the case of San Bernadino, that shooting could have been prevented, and SHOULD have been prevented by a sane immigration policy. Kate would be alive today if those elected officials did their job and removed illegal immigrants from their states. Of course Ms. Fulton doesn't mention any of that, after all, her dead son is more important than some dead white chick or workers at a party.

As for the "diminishing" second amendment rights, I saw similar arguments over the weekend. People like Fulton seem to be unaware of gradualism. We have had cases in Conn and NY where there were new gun laws passed, usually in speedy sessions with little if any public input in which the population is compelled to turn in guns that they legally purchased. Many of the citizens have rightfully refused to give up their arms and munitions. This is how "rights are diminished". It's like a cancer. Cancer ALWAYS starts out small. A single mutated cell. You don't even KNOW the mutated cell is there and a threat to your life. In many cases, by the time you notice the cancer, it's already too late. Oh you might get lucky and get a bit of extra time with some medication, but most times, in spite of all the commercials you see, you're soon dead.

Those of us who understand the nature of gradualism know the danger of "small laws". Just as importantly, these laws, that simply punish the law abiding, which is the vast majority of us, and do nothing to address the criminal class who, hint hint, don't care about the law. For example, a lawmaker was talking about guns brought from gun shows "down south" that make their way to Connecticut and are used in crimes. He said they trace those guns to those shows. Well we have a law against purchasing a gun that is not for yourself. That's called a straw purchase and it is illegal. There's a law for that.

But next year we will have a new president. And everything Obama has done -- even common-sense reforms that a majority of gun owners agree with -- will be overturned if that president is a Republican. In fact, the Republican candidates have vowed to roll back all of these sensible measures. And many of them have shown open contempt for the simple notion that Black Lives Matter.

I'm not a Republican and I have contempt for the Black Lives Matter movement. The BLM movement has shown itself to be opposed to facts and they ought to be treated with the contempt that is owed to those who peddle in lies. See, I'm not one of those people who fall in line because someone uses the phrase "common sense". This is because most of the time those who claim to be using "common sense" don't have any. Common sense says that if black lives matter and black lives are 95% taken by other blacks, that the issue isn't police but blacks. But doing so means we can't be making excuses for our failures. As I've said before the BLM movement is like the alcoholic who insists that his problem is the bar and the bartender. The fact of the matter is that unless the second amendment is repealed there are no constitutional gun laws that will reduce homicides in black communities (or suicides in white ones).

With so many of our children's lives on the line or taken, we simply can't afford to elect a Republican who refuses even to acknowledge the problem of senseless gun violence. The rising generation of our young people need a president who will stand up to inaction from Republicans and indifference from the National Rifle Association.

Because Republicans are responsible for black men shooting other black men.

This is the most assinine statement so far. It's not black folks fault that we shoot each other at 7x the white population. It's the fault of Republicans, most of whom do not live in, do business in or otherwise interact with our people. And if you believe that Republicans do no acknowledge the problem of gun violence you really shouldn't be allowed to vote. Seriously. Not even allowed in the place of polling. What Republicans generally don't agree with is the idea that law abiding people should be restricted and punished for those who are determined to commit crimes.

I believe that person is Hillary Clinton.

Well you can believe in Santa Clause too if you want.

I know Clinton is tough enough to wage this fight. I've seen her do it for years. As first lady, she advocated for the Brady Bill and convened meetings on school violence. As a senator, she voted to extend the assault weapons ban and against an immunity law that protects irresponsible gun makers and dealers from liability.

What exactly is an "irresponsible gun maker"? Are we talking about product liability? Is this like if a gun is poorly manufactured and kills someone as a result? Or is this trying to displace blame for a homicide onto a lawfully operating business?

n spending some time with her in person, I also found a mother and a grandmother who truly heard me, and understood the depth of my loss.

Because leadership should be based on feelings.

She knew all the statistics. But like so many, I've long since grown numb to the numbers. So instead, we talked about Trayvon and other families who have lost a loved one to gun violence.

If she "knew the statistics" then she was looking at you like a damn fool. But I wont comment negatively on Trayvon since the facts as I know them point to him defending himself against an armed stalker who killed his target. But I wouldn't pass a law over that.

And knowing we can never get them back, we discussed how to prevent more moms from losing their sons to gun violence.

Ahh the perpetual liberal fantasy pitch. There will be a world where people don't die and are not raped. We can pass enough laws to make it so. It's the liberal version of "When We All Get To Heaven". No wonder so many people describe liberalism as a religion.

Just as importantly, Clinton also wants to address the larger, systemic problems. She has a plan to begin to heal the distrust and divide that too often exists between law enforcement and the communities they serve.

Simple solution to the "distrust". "Snitch" and stop making heros out of criminals.

She has called for key reforms -- from better training for officers to eliminating racial profiling and investing in body cameras for every police department. She sees what I see: a criminal justice system that is not always just. A system that has contributed to creating a reality where just selling cigarettes, playing loud music, looking at a cop the wrong way or walking home from the store are now activities that can get you killed.

Now if she had said an end to "stop and frisk" I would have been on board. But when black males are committing crimes at 7X the rate of whites and in some cities are responsible for 100% of gun homicides, a level of profiling is going to happen. It is good policing. There are ways to profile that do not violate the constitution, but acting as if everyone is committing the same crimes at the same rates is wishful thinking.

The reference to Eric Garner is a good example of liberal laws gone bad. Selling loosies affects two things liberals go for:

1) Taxes on cigarettes. This goes to raise money for the state. You want all those social programs? You gotta find money for them. So the state goes after untaxed cigarette sales in order to make sure they get that money. So take that up with the governors.

2) "Think about the kids": This is the other argument agains the sales of loosies. Supposedly those selling cigarettes on the street are leading minors into cigarette smoking, heavily frowned upon by liberals (I do not smoke). So the enforcement of these laws are to protect the vulnerable children. Is Fulton FOR endangering the lives of children?

People need to think about the laws they pass. The state WILL use force, including deadly force, to enforce the laws passed by legislative bodies. If you won't kill to enforce a law, then don't pass it. Recently in NY a "person of color" was arrested for "manspreading" on a subway. You can thank a feminist liberal from criminalizing how man sit. Hillary for president indeed.

If you look at the numbers, America is missing 1.5 million men of color -- lost to a system of violence and mass incarceration that seems to have long since forgotten them, but we haven't.

Keys go missing. People who commit crimes and end up in jail because of them are not "missing". We know where they are, why they are there and often when they will be released. The biggest problem with statements such as the above is that it is so passive. Violence and "mass incarceration" just "happen" to black men. Like they woke up one morning, stepped out their homes and got grabbed up by masked men in a dark van and rendered to some black site (well that has been happening in Chicago but that's another discussion).

Here's the problem with this endorsement: It is Democratic Party talking points set in an essay. It externalizes the problems facing black people and externalizes the solutions. It fails to hold the Democratic governors, mayors and legislators (among others) for their multiple failures and asks us to ignore all that and vote for another Democrat. It is emblematic of the serious problem with current American politics. It isn't fact based. It is emotion based. Emotion based governance is getting people killed. Time to put a stop to it.

This Is Not Blackface

People need to get a life. Chick needs to put the picture back up. Say "No" to the lefty bullies who live to be offended. If you need to know what Blackface is, I explain it here

Blackface "minstreling" was done with the sole purpose of employing white persons to play the white supremacist idea of a "common" black person for the sole purpose of entertainment of white persons at the expense of the humanity of black persons. THAT is the defining characteristic of Blackface performance.

If you can't be bothered to make distinctions then shut your hole.

The Baltimore Sun and the Revealed Preferences Of White Liberals

A while back I got into contact with the authors of a paper about what white people thought about diverse neighborhoods. Their "research" revealed that white people generally were very positive about diverse neighborhoods (with the assumption that non-diverse neighborhoods were "bad"). When I contacted the authors I asked one question:

How many of the respondents actually live in a "diverse" neighborhood? And wouldn't you think that what the respondents actually did with their money (or living arrangements) be more representative of their preferences than what they told some random person on the phone?

I never got a reply. I wonder why.

Revealed preferences is nothing new to those of us who have been paying attention. Many people on the left say they think that black people are "equal" and yet are keen to run programs and pass laws and protest in ways that make it clear that they think black people are, by and large, children who are in need of benificent white guidance or in at the least, less rigorous standards and expectations of behavior. Mike Brown mad about being asked to not walk down the middle of the street? We shouldn't expect him to respect authority. "Authority" is triggering.

Black man asked to stay in his car while the police run the plates on the car he's driving? Oh no! The black man should be excused for running, after all he has to deal the prison industrial complex that is trying to get him into jail for no good reason at all.

Black folks shooting each other? Clearly it's the fault of white people who don't live anywhere near them and the gun itself. I mean black people cannot help themselves but to shoot each other when a gun is present. I mean it's a GUN!

Yes, when we look at what left leaning folks say about black people, it reveals exactly what they think of us. Now the Baltimore Sun provides us with the first(?) example of the new year.

I'm less afraid of the criminals wielding guns in Baltimore, I declared as we discussed the issue, than I am by those permitted gun owners.

You know, there are times when I am writing blog entries where I get to a point where I write something that completely discredits the entire piece. They live on as drafts. My general philosophy is that if I cannot construct a proper argument then I don't post the piece. Tricia Bishop ought to abide by such thinking. What she has said here is that she is more afraid of permitted, meaning legal, owners of guns than she is of people who are not permitted. She may as well just declared that she is a jackass. Why is she less afraid of criminals in Baltimore?

I know how to stay out of the line of Baltimore's illegal gunfire; I have the luxury of being white and middle class in a largely segregated city that reserves most of its shootings for poor, black neighborhoods overtaken by "the game." The closest I typically get to the action is feeling the chest-thumping vibrations of the Foxtrot police helicopter flying overhead in pursuit of someone who might be a few streets over, but might as well be a world away. [my underlines]

Translation: I made damn well sure to live away from black folks so I could feel safe from the crime they commit. In order to not feel guilty about it, I pop shit about my white gun owning neighbors who don't commit crimes.

There was a time in the US when it was assumed that every household had at least one gun (unless the occupant was a pacifist vegetarian) and that any child with reasonable thinking skills knew how to use it/them. Now about half the country not only does not know how to use a gun but are scared to the point of irrationality of them. What the hell happened?

But I don't know where the legal gun owners are or how to ensure that their children, no matter how well versed in respecting firearms, won't one day introduce that weapon to my daughter.

Generally speaking children of gun owners do not "show and tell" with guests. Children who do so are generally in household who ought not have a gun (most likely illegally purchased) or the owner was very lax in not only securing the firearm but of educating their children on when it is appropriate for them to touch it (much less use it). To add to he level of paranoia this woman is showing is that among whites, death by gun is usually the result of suicide and child involved shootings (usually accidental) are extremely rare.

ut how about adding something immediately useful: a gun owner registry available to the public online — something like those for sex offenders. I'm not equating gun owners with predatory perverts, but the model is helpful here; I want a searchable database I can consult to find out whether my kid can have a play date at your house.

1) You just did compare the two.
2) Why does this chick think that she should have a right to know what a private citizen owns?
3) Why doesn't this chick not care enough about the "poor blacks" in her "segregated city" to ask that the names and locations of convicted gun crime felons be posted online for them to know who to look out for? After all, in America, we punish and take the rights away from the convicted, not the innocent and law abiding.

My folks were taught how to handle guns and use them safely. But that doesn't do much to allay my fears; it's the simple presence of the weapon in the home and the possibilities it presents that terrify me.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: those persons who are truly "terrified" of a weapon are in need of professional help and ought not be writing for a "reputable" news organization. There are many desensitization programs out there that can help her with her phobia. Besides, generally speaking, in normal people mastery of an inanimate object leads to less anxiety. This chick is clearly not normal. Note to Baltimore Sun: Please give this woman some sick leave. She needs it.

U.S. toddlers were accidentally shooting people — including themselves — at the rate of one per week last year.

That's 52 toddlers. In the same space of time over 300 people in Baltimore were killed. Not to mention those who were shot and survived. She's like the BLM folks: Lets talk about the minor issue and act like the big one doesn't exist.

And most of the guns used in the last 15 unpredictable mass shootings — including San Bernardino; Umpqua, Ore.; and Marysville, Wash., where a 15-year-old used his father's Beretta to kill four fellow high school students — were purchased legally.

Two points here. First: San Bernardino was entirely preventable. A proper immigration policy would have kept those persons out of the country. Secondly; no law short of a repeal of the second amendment will prevent someone who legally purchased a fire arm to one day flip his or her lid and murder someone. And all the repeal of the second amendment would do is cause gun ownership to go underground. I wont even get into the hell that would be the attempted confiscation of firearms.

Of course many of the commentary I've seen on this piece discusses her database suggestion. I think the real info is where she lives and who she claims to be scared of.

Guardian 2016: Same SJW Nonsense. Different Year

It arrived in my inbox bright and early this first day of the new year:

Young black men killed by US police at highest rate in year of 1,134 deaths

It may as well have said:

Niggaz Gettin'Shot For No Reason Yo!

You know your in SJW wonderland when the subhead is:

Final total of people killed by US police officers in 2015 shows rate of death for young black men was five times higher than white men of the same age

This is standard SJW argumentation. They THINK that people of different groups ought to be doing behavior at the same proportion as their population. They think that because someone said "all men are created equal" that it means they do the same things to the same extents. So they think that there is some conspiracy why black folks are 2% of tech companies while studiously ignoring why Asians are way overrepresented in the same. Surely black and white people commit the same amount of crimes that draw the attention of police and if they do they should be getting shot the same amount to. Of course the reality is that you don't compare populations, you compare activity engaged in by members of each group. Once you do that, it is entirely plausible and expected that a group that commits violent crimes at rates of 7x the white population would also find itself killed by police at nearly 5x the rate of whites.

Young black men were nine times more likely than other Americans to be killed by police officers in 2015, according to the findings of a Guardian study that recorded a final tally of 1,134 deaths at the hands of law enforcement officers this year.

Did I mention the 7x rate of violent crime?

Despite making up only 2% of the total US population, African American males between the ages of 15 and 34 comprised more than 15% of all deaths logged this year by an ongoing investigation into the use of deadly force by police. Their rate of police-involved deaths was five times higher than for white men of the same age.

Did you know that for the age range of 15 and 34 the number one cause of African-American males is assault or homicide? The Guardian apparently doesn't think this is important.

Paired with official government mortality data, this new finding indicates that about one in every 65 deaths of a young African American man in the US is a killing by police.

“This epidemic is disproportionately affecting black people,” said Brittany Packnett, an activist and member of the White House taskforce on policing. “We are wasting so many promising young lives by continuing to allow this to happen.”

Epidemic you say? I dunno. I am FAR more concerned about the 64 of 65 deaths of African-American men who were NOT killed by police. That's a fucking epidemic! THAT is a waste of "promising young lives".

Speaking in the same week that a police officer in Cleveland, Ohio, was cleared by a grand jury over the fatal shooting of Tamir Rice, a 12-year-old African American boy who was carrying a toy gun, Packnett said the criminal justice system was presenting “no deterrent” to the excessive use of deadly force by police. “Tamir didn’t even live to be 15,” she said

Firstly Rice was playing with a real looking toy gun with the "toy gun" marker purposely removed while in a park in a city that suffers from a lot of violent crime, often committed by guns that bear a striking resemblance to the "toy" Rice was playing with, outdoors, in a public part. I think it appropriate to ask why a 12 year old wasn't taught that his actions could have deadly consequences, and not only from police.

Protests accusing law enforcement officers of being too quick to use lethal force against unarmed African Americans have spread across the country in the 16 months since dramatic unrest gripped Ferguson, Missouri, following the fatal police shooting of 18-year-old Michael Brown by a white officer.

Ahh yes Ferguson where even the DOJ came to the conclusion that the shooting was justified and Brown did in fact try to rob a store. But hell, why not come to the defense of violent folks. Who gives a damn about folks trying to live their lives around these folks.

Overall in 2015, black people were killed at twice the rate of white, Hispanic and native Americans. About 25% of the African Americans killed were unarmed, compared with 17% of white people. This disparity has narrowed since the database was first published on 1 June, at which point black people killed were found to be twice as likely to not have a weapon.

[Edit: This part is wrong. The Washington Post article's 4% claim is for unarmed Black men shot by White Police officers rather than by police in general. The larger point still stands: That unarmed black males are rarely shot by white police] This claim contradicts the report given by the Washington Post:

In a year-long study, The Washington Post found that the kind of incidents that have ignited protests in many U.S. communities — most often, white police officers killing unarmed black men — represent less than 4 percent of fatal police shootings.

Both items cannot be correct at the same time. Someone is lying.

[End Edit] The rest of the article is much like the Washington Post's piece so I wont go over it again. You know what the Guardian needs to do? They need to do a report on the number of black men killed by other black men across the country by state and by month. Put the results next to the killings by police and let the public judge what the real problem is.