I’ve been trying to get this blog out for years now. Turning my often conflicting views into a cohesive message has proven difficult. The compounding effects of mass shooting after mass shooting leaves me unable to solidify a message; every new circumstance adds to the complications and thereby, a new thought on how to fix this serious American problem. Even worse than the shootings themselves is America’s leadership’s propensity to have the same argument over and over again, both sides being satisfied with the same opinions and proposals from the previous mass shooting. Our politicians are supposed to be the thinkers of society who interface the public’s will with the existing political system they control. Sadly, today’s politician can’t even expand the debate; much less create a solution. Democrat politicians simply attack various aspects of gun ownership while Republican politicians resist any change. Even worse, the same lawmakers repeatedly lead the citizens into having the same fruitless debate over and over again. It’s as if politicians are pretending to solve the problem, yet surreptitiously preserving it and the political capital it yields. Following the Buffalo, New York, Uvalde, Texas and since I’ve finished writing this blog, the Highland Park, Illinois mass shootings, we, yet again, have politicians reiterating the same points raised after Columbine. I can’t think of a politician who has ever introduced a new idea into the gun violence debate. I’m not even sure if each side even understands the others’ position, or even cares.
If Sandy Hook didn’t do it, nothing will
If a deranged mass shooter killing nearly 20 White children and several White women at Sandy Hook Elementary School didn’t create the candor and political will for truly effective change, nothing will. As harsh as this may sound, a bunch a Brown children being killed in Uvalde, Texas ranks less in impact than Sandy Hook and is guaranteed to lead to very few if any real solutions. Still politicians are spinning their wheels in bad faith, exploiting this opportunity to drive their political agendas, each side steadfastly sticking to its guns drawn long before the Uvalde or Highland Park Massacre.
America is a bad faith society
Western culture’s biggest fault, its acceptance of bad faith behavior, makes the gun issue impossible to resolve. Since its inception, deception has underpinned Western cultural development and its citizens have always accepted deceit as normal. The reasons why are beyond the scope of this blog, but I will say it has nothing to do with genetics or inherent “racial” traits and everything to do with Europe’s scarce environment. With deception being so deeply ingrained in the fabric of Western existence, citizens not only lie to each other, but they lie to themselves. Every gun law is an attempt to completely eliminate private gun ownership in America. Many gun regulation advocates don’t even know they’re trying to eliminate all guns and feel they are seeking “common sense” gun measures. Measures are not “common sense” if a common amount of citizens can’t compel a common portion of government leadership to pass them. Disillusioned Liberal politicians are mistakenly calling a balance between their own views and their uninformed interpretation of their opposition’s outlooks, “common sense.”
What happens when we pass new gun laws and another mass shooting happens? More laws? I wrote this blog after the Uvalde, Texas massacre and as predicted, politicians, who have just passed a new law, are asking for yet more new laws. This endless cycle has been the recent history of gun safety measures; we are still asking for more laws today despite successfully implementing laws in the past. In truth, whether knowing or unknowing, anti-gun advocates all seek to use laws as a means to eliminating private gun ownership in America. Similar to Conservatives with Roe v. Wade, rather than “settled law” meaning an issue has been resolved, new measures passed just create starting points for the next advance against the opposition’s interests. Empathy and consideration for those you don’t agree with is a myth in Western society. Absolute victory is everyone’s goal and the gun regulation lobby is no different.
Obstructive Generalization
I coined a term in To Pimp a Nation called “obstructive generalization.” People obstructively generalize to avoid focus on themselves. For example, White people use the saying, “mankind has always been at war,” or, “everyone had slavery,” to avoid focus on and realization that the versions of slavery and warfare people from the Eurasian continent practiced are unparalleled in human history and anywhere else. Sidestepping honesty, even with one’s enemies, was rare outside of the Eurasian continent. The dehumanizing practice of erasing slaves’ past cultures and reducing them to animals is exclusive to Europeans. By obstructively generalizing, America’s outlook redistributes White men’s wealth of cultural ills to everyone. Gun advocates, too, use obstructive generalization when they equate mass shootings with gang violence like Chicago’s. They do it to, 1. Prevent the realization that mass killing, historically is overwhelmingly White and male. And 2. stop any momentum towards disrupting the 2nd Amendment right’s status quo. Republican leaders along with gun rights advocates obstructive generalizing shows that gun rights are higher than children’s lives on their priority list. The Sandy Hook mass shooting along with the recent Uvalde massacre along with the many in between demonstrate that dead children can’t even compel candor and good-faith solution finding from these groups. Otherwise, they would notice mass shootings are different than gang shootings and begin coming up with solutions.
Hypocrisy on both sides
The Western inability to soulfully embrace a principle also leads to hypocrisy on both sides of the gun debate. 2ndAmendment advocates make a big deal about government violating Constitutional rights and taking guns away yet are completely for law enforcement illegally breaking into Black homes and disarming Black people. If any substantial gun laws are ever passed, you can best bet they will affect Black people first and worse than Whites. In fact the new gun safety bill makes use of the Edward Byrne Fund, which is the same funding source that incentivized the Black drug persecutions of the 80s, 90s and 2000s. 2nd Amendment advocates are pro gun regulation as long as it isn’t enforced against White men.
Anti-gun advocates are hypocritical too. How exactly do they think reduced or eliminated gun ownership will actually happen? Do they think some words on paper would compel gun owners to hand the government their last line of protection from that government? If they are they’re sadly mistaken. It will take guns to get the guns away and it won’t be pretty. Anti-gun advocates seek to use guns and gun violence to create a gunless society. Western disingenuousness, where people seek absolute triumph regardless of their opposition’s views causes both groups to seek victory over solutions and they both look stupid in the process.
AR15 laws in California
Let’s look at gun laws against the AR15 in California, where I live. The anti-gun lobby got enough citizens on both sides of the issue to agree to limit magazine capacity to 10 rounds back in the year 2000 and told those who had large capacity magazines, they could keep them. What did that agreement gain for gun owners? A new starting position for the anti-gun lobby’s next advance against those gun owners’ interests. Lawmakers later turned their backs on the gun owners they lured into agreement before and banned possession of magazines that held more than 10 rounds. With magazine capacity limitations locked in, they launched a volley of additional new laws criminalizing those who initially agreed to magazine limitations; such laws did nothing to stop mass shootings so they lobbied for more and more laws. They passed a “bullet button” regulation making assault weapon owners modify their guns with a contraption that required a special tool to eject the magazine. Years later they outlawed that contraption, placing those who followed the law in criminal jeopardy. They made adjustable stocks an “assault weapon characteristic” as if adjusting a gunstock’s length makes a mass shooter less likely to use it or use it with accuracy. It’s still a gun. Perhaps they aimed at making folding gunstocks, which can make an AR15 more easily concealable, illegal. If this is the case, their ignorance pointlessly penalized many without cause. The anti-gun lobby made grips you can wrap your thumb around an assault weapon characteristic so now assault weapon owners have to put funny looking stocks on their guns just to keep them. Sure! This will stop a mentally pained insignificant feeling incel teen from shooting up the next school. These convoluted, pointless and confusing laws only gained anti-gun politicians political points with their naïve base yet the measures do little to stop a gun from being a gun. Here’s a question: How many politicians’ kids have been killed in mass shootings? The answer to this question explains their effectiveness in creating actual solutions.
Guns could only fire one shot when the 2nd Amendment was written. Also, AR15s can’t be used for hunting.
Many anti-gun advocates make the point that guns could only fire one shot when the 2nd Amendment was written. They also point out that the AR15 isn’t made for hunting. We are usually in the aftermath of a tragedy when we discuss these points and since sincerity is largely lacking in Western society, no one is brave enough to mention that these points are exactly right. One-shot guns were the latest technology and the exact weaponry a tyrannical government would have used to subvert the will of the people. This why our forefathers ensured citizens had access to the exact same technology. They didn’t write the 2nd amendment to ensure men could hunt, they wrote it so regular citizens could be an effective check on a tyrannical government. This didn’t come without opposition. Many wanted to disarm citizens and have absolute government rule like in Europe, but our forefathers ensured that We the People could stop that from occurring.
Our Forefathers wanted citizens armed so they could shoot a tyrannical government
The reason for the 2nd Amendment is widely debated. The actual reason will never make it to light because those having the debate, our government leaders, are who the guns our forefathers entitled American citizens to have, were for shooting, if they became tyrannical. Here are the words of the 2nd Amendment:
“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.”
Many think the militia was to combat England and other foreign invaders but America already had a standing army since 1784. While access to weapons for the common man to combat foreign invaders was part of it, the 2ndAmendment’s main reason was to prevent the American government from taking away the people’s freedom. This fact doesn’t make it into the debate because those having the debate are the American government. Here are some thoughts from our forefathers regarding the 2nd Amendment:
Thomas Jefferson said: “What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.”
George Mason, one of the Virginia Delegates at the Constitutional Convention said: “I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.”
Representative Elbridge Gerry said: “What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty …. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.”
Alexander Hamilton said: “In a single state, if the persons intrusted (sic) with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.”
Although not a founding father, Noah Webster said: “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops.”
It’s clear that shooting a tyrannical government was at least one of the 2nd Amendment’s purposes. This doesn’t come up much in debate because our politicians are that government to be shot if they become tyrannical.
They truly DO want to take the guns away
2nd Amendment advocates constantly complain that the anti-gun lobby is trying to “take their guns away.” They are! And they did in California. Lawmakers began making assault weapons owners register their guns, as if no one realized this registration list will become a pickup list if a full ban is ever achieved. Then California politicians made unregistered assault weapons illegal and unable to register; every discovery of an unregistered assault weapon means the government will be taking away the weapon 2nd Amendment advocates said they were trying to take away to begin with. This method of taking guns away is disingenuous and bad faith because gun owners got scammed through cooperation. This type of deception lies at the root of the pro 2nd Amendment advocates’ opposition to any laws whatsoever. The anti-gun lobby functions the same as pro-life advocates. They act in bad faith and want their views to have absolute reign without any consideration for their opposition. California’s ever-increasing ban on assault weapons is dangerous to the political system our forefathers intended. With the assault weapon registry, the California government or, “standing army,” knows exactly where to find and collect the guns standing in the way of their absolute and tyrannical rule. They are allowed to have and use the exact same weapons they’re taking away from the citizens. In fact, police officers can privately own, sell and trade automatic weapons and high capacity magazines while California is taking them away from regular citizens. This is a recipe for tyranny.
The AR15
Anti-gun advocates cite the AR15’s bullets’ ability to “tear through human flesh“ as one of the main reasons for banning it. They are supposed to tear through flesh. That is what guns do. All bullets tear through human flesh so anti-gun advocates are unknowingly making a case for banning all guns. Plus, the AR15 comes in .22 caliber, one of the smallest and least powerful bullets made; a ban on AR15s because they “tear through human flesh” makes a case for getting rid of all guns in America.
Every time someone uses an AR15 to do a mass shooting, the gun itself becomes the center of debate. The disconnect between both sides is as follows: The group against the AR15 doesn’t understand guns in general and their followers know even less; they call the AR15 a “weapon of war.” Well, what gun isn’t? Many hear the 
phrase “semi-automatic” and erroneously think it means machine gun. It doesn’t; you have to pull an AR15s trigger each time to shoot a bullet, just like a 9mm or a 22 caliber pistol. Media definitely don’t bother educating the people about the difference between semi automatic and automatic weapons. Machine guns are automatic. Those are unequivocal weapons of war in every sense. 9mm pistols also come in fully automatic and can hold over 100 rounds. In other words, a 9mm pistol can be just as much a weapon or war as a fully-automatic AR15. Of the United States’ top 10 death toll mass shootings, six involved pistols. The AR15s legal in the US are not automatic and do the exact same thing a legal 9mm pistol does; fire a bullet. Being a rifle, they can be more accurate and since the standard .223 shells pack more gunpowder, the bullets have more energy. But it’s not like the difference between mass shootings and mass killings is the type of weapon used. The Isla Vista massacre shooter used 9mm pistols. But so did the Frank James, the Black man who shot 10 people on a New York subway but didn’t kill anyone. Whether a 9mm or a .223, or even a 22 caliber, the shot
can and will be deadly. What is the difference between a 22 caliber AR15 and a 22 caliber pistol? One may be a little more accurate but they both fire the same bullet with the same power. My issue with an assault weapons ban is, since pistols and AR15s do the same thing, banning one dooms the other. Since no one thus far can explain what the AR15 does that the 9mm or a 22 doesn’t, banning one can be a slippery slope to me not being able to protect myself. It’s not like America’s mass shooting history consists of many failed mass shootings using pistols and successful ones using AR15s. Each gun has its share of deaths so if the goal is to stop mass shootings by banning the AR15, wouldn’t the next step be to ban the other type of gun, which will likely replace the AR15s role in mass shootings?
The second side of the gun debate is pro-gun. They are more informed on guns but there are many factions and they don’t all agree or get along. The biggest advocates are White males, to whom the gun is everything. If you ask White men what the best invention in the world is, the vast majority would say the gun. The gun is how they came to have so much influence on world culture. It is also the prime source of their fear in a world where they would otherwise be fearless. White men used the gun to subjugate the World and enslave Africans. Those Africans are now arguably free and enjoy Constitutional rights in America, including the right to bear arms. This lone fact is the main driver of White men clinging to their guns. Although they try to convince everyone, including themselves, that this isn’t true, their subconscious, which doesn’t lie, knows they are responsible for scores of generations of people being, not only held back for centuries, but tortured throughout the entire process. Although they’ll convince you they had nothing to do with it, their clinging to their guns says they believe otherwise.
The true reason no one will disarm is Race
I truly wish White men had never invented the gun. Guns are the reason weaker, less qualified people can rule those better suited for leadership and who would be far better guardians of humanity. White men call the gun the “great equalizer,” a term that, unless they thought the gun decreased their power, showed they felt inside that they were somehow, lesser. The gun is why Western leaders can implement a foolish system of world control based on a balance of barbaric threats rather than good-faith interaction between humans. Much of today’s gun issues stem from America’s original form, which allowed White America, as a country, to live off the backs of and take out their frustrations on Black people. They mass killed Black life through slavery and mass murdered Black bodies through lynchings. If the former wasn’t so valuable, they would have killed more Black people in mass just as they did Native Americans. Once President Lincoln emancipated slaves, a failed economic model, where White men competed with each other for a scarce amount of work and resources, became even more depressed because cheaper Black labor pushed White men out of jobs. These White men reacted by mass killing Black people as they fled racial persecutions in the South and looked for work in the North. This lasted until recent history and once Civil Rights legislation passed, America’s propensity to mass kill Black people was assigned to law enforcement, a move that only suppressed existing White male racial frustrations. The racism that America refuses to fix drives White men to arm themselves and non-White people, mainly Black people, to arm themselves in reaction to the former. White men using the gun for most of their past achievements gives it a special place in their minds as their go-to tool for overcoming adversity. This focus on guns drives elements of America’s population, mainly White men, to senseless mass killings and it’s only going to get worse. These mass killers are sensing the social adjustment that comes with people other than White males gaining power and their mass killing tantrums are them using their most essential cultural tool to express their anger. It’s no coincidence that the same people America is designed to unfairly benefit, White males, are the same people senselessly mass killing innocent people seemingly only for the sake of mass killing.
America allows racism to remain unresolved, yet has countless guns and can’t keep track of them. Although they’d never admit it, White men are always worried about racial retribution. The subconscious thinks in truths so even if they don’t consciously admit or realize it, they all know there’s an astronomical outstanding debt yet to be paid. Although Black people have yet to decide how to deal with this debt, the silence makes White men obsess over what’s to come; they imagine aggression that doesn’t exist. This psychosis is the real reason White men can see masses of children massacred over and over again yet use incremental and ineffective lawmaking to throttle the process of fixing the problem. Black people are in a similar situation in that they fear racial persecution. White men have a long track record of killing them for being Black. America aided the lynchings by blaming the Black people for their own deaths and today is no different. These days America’s designated lynchers, law enforcement, carry out the dirty deeds of the past’s lynch mobs. Both mob lynchings of the past and state-sanctioned police neo-lynchings of today occupy the same place in the Black psyche in that they serve to remind Black people that America can and will kill them. Black people arm themselves because they know White America is arming themselves to kill them. I recently filmed a commercial at a private residence in rural America. The owner, a White man, and I spoke about gun rights and obviously he was pro 2nd Amendment. His statement that struck me the most was when he told me “none of the guns in his house were registered.” He clearly wasn’t worried about the government forcing its way into his home and finding his unregistered gun stash. That same secret gun stash is what I imagine I’d be against if American social order broke down and the 13th Amendment suddenly degraded like Roe v Wade just did. It doesn’t take much for the designated lynchers of today to join forces with the unregulated lynchers of the past. Kyle Rittenhouse was a member of this natural American alliance that forms against Black people when American political and racial tensions become strained. During the Black Lives Matter protests of 2020, Kyle Rittenhouse joined a lynch mob in waiting to begin their massacre. Police aided and advocated this armed White male group while violently combating a largely unarmed pro-Black protest. This is a perfect case for Black people arming themselves.
The Turner Diaries
America’s unwillingness to look racism in the eye is why we fail to realize many of the White men committing senseless mass shootings feel they’re participating in the movement to restore absolute White male rule illustrated in the 1978 book, The Turner Diaries. Also referred to the “bible of the racist Right” and “The handbook for White victory,” The Turner Diaries begins in the aftermath of the “Cohen Act,” a new law outlawing private gun ownership. The trajectory of America today is eerily similar and prompts White men to see truth in it. Anyway, the Jewish government deputizes Black men to conduct raids on “racist” Whites’ homes looking for holdout weapons, which drives members of a White supremacist organization called “The Organization” underground where they form
covert cells and work to undermine the American government and restore White Male rule. They have both covert members driven off the grid by government persecution and members called “legals,” who are in good standing with the government but work from within to undermine it. The Organization carries out a series of terror attacks including, many robberies, bombing an FBI building, shooting down an airliner and a mortar attack on the capitol in Washington. The purpose of political terror, in the author’s vision was to “force the authorities to take reprisals and to become more repressive (towards the citizens), thus alienating a portion of the population and generating sympathy for the terrorists.” And the other purpose is to, “create unrest by destroying the population’s sense of security and their belief in the invincibility of the government.” The White male supremacists carrying out terrorist attacks in America today feel they are part of “The Organization” and doing their part to sew terror into America to prepare it for White male Rule. Being written in 1978, some scenes in the book are nearly prophetic to young White males experiencing contemporary America in 2022. For instance, the author writes, “The queers, fetishists, the mixed-race couples, the sadists, and the exhibitionists—urged on by mass media—are parading their perversions in public, and the public is joining them.” He also explains the term, “women’s libber,” calling feminism a “psychosis” that denied women their femininity to divide the White race. The #metoo movement, rise of Feminism, recent advancements in gay and transexual rights and the increase in mixed race couples, to a young White man expecting an idle America to lean in his favor, The Turner Diaries seems prophetic. The story ends with White men using a nuclear bomb to nuke the Pentagon and force America to submit to White male rule. America’s unwillingness to look racism square in the eye and fix it leaves us in denial as to how much racism exist. White America pretends there’s very little, but in truth, racism is embedded in America’s fabric; hatred of Black people and disregard for anyone who isn’t a statedly-straight, White male, is America’s purest form. Racists almost gained control of the capitol and had they navigated better, they could have killed a great portion of America’s top leadership. In other words, The Turner Diaries can easily become non-fiction.
Black people are mainly pro-gun
Black Americans are mainly pro-gun but would love for the gun to have never been invented. The same barbaric tool that allowed Europeans to cheat in human warfare and is the means of us damaging ourselves today is the same gun used by the 1960s Black Panther Party to show White America there’s a limit to the amount they will be bullied. White men used the gun to destroy countless fledgling black towns in the 1910s and 1920s stopping them from “pulling themselves up by the bootstraps.”
For instance, in Longview, Texas, 1919, Black men used guns to fend off white men attempting to lynch a black author, who a White mob thought wrote an anonymous article about a White woman’s Black lover. White men wanted the lady’s lover described as a burglar but the author described him as her lover. The White mob went to the author’s neighborhood and beat him then came back later with a bigger mob to lynch him. Fortunately a well-armed black militia fended them off. These guns gave many Black women and children the opportunity to escape before the White mob, including law enforcement came back, murdered people, sacked the town and burned homes, churches and businesses. Guns were both friend and foe to blacks in this 1919 incident; this reflects our ambivalence in 2022. Deep inside all black people fear more racial persecution and America has yet to make us feel safe enough to disarm.
Black people are the key to either side winning the gun debate
Black people are the key to resolving America’s gun debate; we stand on both sides. My mother is a perfect illustration; She would be the first to vote for gun restricting measures yet accepted a gun from me without question on December 31st 1999 when all the hype about Y2K chaos was rampant. The amount of danger we feel affects our position on guns so it is no question that most of us are pro gun currently. Guns being restricted would mean less deadly shootings in our neighborhoods, however, those guns would be the only thing standing between us and lynchings and re-enslavement if our systems ever broke down again. Right now we keep the debate on the pro-gun side but if America became a place where we felt safe, we, in traditional fashion, can use our soul to make gun elimination resonate amongst all Americans. This would of course mean eliminating the many threats we face, such as police brutality, White supremacy, systemic racism and overall bigotry. As long as these remain, we will remained armed, which is the main reason White men oppose gun safety measures. Even though the guns cause trouble in the Black community, we know those troublemakers would serve as our own experienced army if American social order breaks down.
My personal views on guns
My views on gun control are more pragmatic than ideal. I truly wish White men had never invented the gun. Guns are why less barbaric non-Western cultures factored so little into today’s global social model. Knowing White America is arming themselves to kill me is the reason I’m for completely unrestricted gun rights. This is a practical viewpoint designed to yield a degree of American gun ownership somewhere midway between my views and anti-gun advocates’ wishes. I hold my opinions not because I want deadlier and deadlier weapons in the hands of average Americans, rather I want access to the same caliber weapons racists and a government gone awry may have. I also think law enforcement should be limited to the same weapons civilians can have. It’s a sad double standard that police officers can personally own truly deadly weapons of war outlawed for regular citizens yet regular citizens, especially Black ones are restricted and increasingly being disarmed. It’s a recipe for racial persecution and tyranny. To counter what has traditionally been a deadly threat to Black people in the past, I feel Americans should be able to own anything the local and State government can have. Create an America where I feel safe enough to disarm and I’ll be happy to do so. Until then, I want access to everything I may be up against.
The dejected White men America doesn’t want to talk about
America purposely lumps both the shootings it cares about and those it doesn’t into a single term, “Mass shooting.” It’s a form of Socialism White men in America love. Authorities and academics don’t settle on a definition purposely so they can equate gang violence and the mass shootings, thereby, socializing the evils of mass killing with day-to-day gang warfare. White male mass killings actually make the headlines; you know, the ones committed mainly by White males where they, in their own personal vacuum, decide to randomly take the lives of people who have nothing to do with them. If authorities began saying “massacre,” the overwhelming majority of offenders would be White and male and it would prompt some reflecting and exploration as to why they constantly shoot and kill masses of innocent people that take no issue with them. As much as America demonizes Black males for gang shootings, it’s only the frequency that keeps them in the public eye. All Black gang killings in the us EVER still have yet to reach 100,000. However, the top 10 casualty massacres in the US were by White men, many of which were against Black people and Native Americans. Gang shootings have taken place since the early 1980s and national media don’t bother to mention the vast majority of them. Mass killings normally involve a White male and often White victims so media emulate the overall American attitude by expressing concern. To make this disingenuousness worse, Conservatives use gang violence at will as a shield against Democrats’ attempts to bring relief to minorities through gun regulation. For instance, the automatic reaction when one tries to bring attention to White men shooting up schools is, “there are more shootings in Chicago.” In other words, “don’t look at us, look at them.” A White person in Chicago is extremely unlikely to get shot and killed. Of the 235 murder victims in Chicago so far this year (Before the Highland Park massacre), 11 are White. Yet Chicago is the go-to gun violence example 2nd Amendment advocates use to avoid figuring out why White men keep randomly killing masses of people
It only seems that Republicans only care about Black gang violence when Black people get White people’s ear and begin to explain our plight. Talk of police reform, defunding the police or gun regulation prompts Fox News to start broadcasting story after story of the Black deaths that are always occurring in Chicago and various ghettos throughout the United States, yet media only cover when it serves them best. Those they previously described as “gang members” suddenly get names and the minors suddenly become children with life stories, accomplishments, families, futures and aspirations.
A White guy randomly deciding to go kill people is completely different than a gang shooting. At least gangs have reasons.
Gun rights advocates think media are picking on them, while giving gangs a P.R. break. NO! Black deaths are permissible in America and White deaths aren’t. Black male perpetrators are expected and White ones aren’t. America’s reacting to the deaths it doesn’t consider permissible and hence the disproportionate amount of White mass shooting coverage versus gang violence. We’ve seen the measures White America takes when it actually cares about something. They’ve organized armed protests to defend racists’ statues, Confederate flags and neo-Nazi protests; they even tried to take a governor hostage over mask mandates; at minimum White men step up to protect what they care for; they only instigate conversations about Black gun violence that divide Black people and turn the country against them. White America even erroneously faults Black people for protesting police killings and not everyday Black on Black murder; they only know about the police murder protests because media, fearing a change in the status quo, actually cover them. Black on Black murder doesn’t affect them so they seldom report on the countless stop the violence events Black America organize every year. Politicians and pro-gun advocates selectively referencing gang violence don’t really care about Black deaths; they just enjoy the convenience of exploiting them.
The current gun regulation bill doesn’t have a chance in hell of helping. And it will have racist effects.
Americans right now are hopeful that this latest gun reform bill will help stop mass shootings. It won’t and it didn’t. We have already had a mass killing in Highland Park, Illinois since the new law passed. Republicans are playing a game with the new law and Democrats are only in it for the political capital. 20 Senators, 10 Republican and 10 Democrat, wrote, and President Biden signed it into law, a gun bill that will only have marginal results at best. Additionally, it will have racist effects on Black people. As I mentioned above, racism causes both Black people and White people to arm themselves. The newest gun bill will disarm Black people and empower White men over them. Why? Remember that laws began criminalizing Black people before they were even free so law enforcement has always looked for crime more amongst Black people and therefore finds it more in amongst Blacks than Whites. The new law allows the unsealing of juvenile criminal records to search for problematic behavior. My first arrest was at the age of 12. Even though my first encounter with police wasn’t violent, I can see this law having been an obstacle to my gun ownership had this law been in place. I had trouble getting my first legal gun despite this law not being in place; the background check lasted longer than the 10 day period prescribed by law. You can best bet police will be agitating more violence with the kids they encounter in the future and thereby giving them disqualifying juvenile records to be found later in their life when they seek to become gun owners. The “Red Flag” provisions, too, will have racist effects. Because of America’s Black Social Deficit, police are more likely to arrest, charge and subsequently take guns away from Black men who are involved in domestic disputes while seeing White ones as “just having a misunderstanding.” If this sounds far-fetched, Robert Crimo III, the Highland Park shooter, had police called to his home, not only for trying to kill himself, but another time after threatening to “kill everyone in his house.” Guess whose White Social Benefit enabled them to keep their gun and later use it to commit mass murder? You guessed it! Robert Crimo. The propensity for America to disarm more Black people will empower White men over them. Politicians are just politically capitalizing on and preserving the underlying issue, while also advancing a White male supremacy agenda. This doesn’t have to be intentional either. America’s racist foundation means anything built on that foundation will have to overcompensate to not be racist. The new gun law passed swiftly through both houses of Congress and the President quickly signed it into law without even considering the racist implications or considering measures to prevent them. They didn’t take care to ensure it wouldn’t become a tool for White supremacists cops. The new law also makes use of the Edward Byrne fund, the fund that incentivized the drug persecution of Black America. The ultimate result will be police arresting more minorities and taking their legally owned firearms away than White men. Democrats will now go to their base to cash in their political tokens, claiming victory, and Republicans will privately celebrate yet another defeated effort to overthrow the 2nd Amendment. Soon we will have less armed Black people, more Armed White men, another mass shooting will occur and the Congress will begin the cycle over again.
How to truly stop gun violence
America has a culture problem rather than a gun problem. The debate amongst our politicians is most telling. All the so-called “solutions” conveniently think around measures involving stopping people from wanting to shoot one another. Politicians demonstrate that they have subconsciously precluded that it is impossible to get Americans to not want to kill other Americans; one side finds it easier to remove the means of killing and the other wants to enable everyone to kill in defense. These are supposed to be America’s idea people yet none of them have figured out that if people don’t feel the need to shoot each other, they won’t. News reporters are equally limited in thought. In a debate on MSNBC one morning I watched a reporter, an ex-police chief and another guest break through one of what I call the “two barriers of US narcissism.” The first barrier is the guns. We blame the guns themselves and try to regulate them. The second barrier is the person using the guns. We either emphasize their mental health or assault their character as if it developed in a vacuum. These subconscious measures avoid the realization that the US’s social culture causes its citizens to want to kill each other. This is a cultural ill and a sin against humanity. Everyone in America thinks it’s impossible for American citizens to be organically unified enough not to shoot one another dead. Western culture has a myopic view of what it is capable of because its outlook is based solely on what Europeans have done throughout history. Americans aren’t even aware of the many past African societies that achieved what Western society today finds unachievable. Citizens in many pre-colonial African societies lived in good faith with one another to the point where personal ownership wasn’t even a concept. Everyone was vested in everyone else’s happiness and therefore happy themselves. Murder was such a far-fetched concept that the penalty for it was that you had to commit 
suicide; the state itself wouldn’t even kill you. A citizen killing a mass of his or her fellow citizens was impossible in these social environments. Rather than taking guns away or giving them to everyone, we have to address the root of the problem, which is the fact people feel the need to shoot one another. Fix this issue and we would never have another mass shooting no matter how many guns exist in America. The first step would be to fix racism. White men arm themselves mainly out of fear of retribution for slavery. They also indiscriminately kill Black people because of this fear, which causes Black people to arm themselves. In 2018 there were 393 million civilian-owned guns in the United States. When I wrote To Pimp a Nation in 2016 there were 330 million. Since 2018 we have had the largest, most effective protest against killing Black people, which I’m sure drove countless White men to buy more guns. Police reaction to the protests I’m sure drove many Black people to buy guns as well. We are surely past 400 million legally owned firearms by this point, which doesn’t include my friend in rural America’s (mentioned above) unregistered stash. The number of guns in America is going up so trying to take them away from citizens, many of which will use them to avoid having them taken away, is not happening. Not to mention Russia and other anti-Western countries would also be happy to supply different factions of an American rivalry much like England supplied arms to the Confederates. The guns are here to stay so any successful solution will have to take into account that citizens in America will have guns.