Sandy Hook families settle for $73M with gun maker Remington

Then the data has been manipulated. If you want to equate that to peer review, then peer review has even less value to it then I previously gave it.

Data IS. Simple, straight forward facts. Person X shot Person Y. That is basic information. You start adding people's perspectives by 'organizing' it to fit a particular outcome, it no longer has value.

 

They actually admitted it openly?

I've travelled a lot around the world and I've lived in several countries. Now, I was witness to Apartheid's "business as usual" in the RSA and the RSR but other than that the worse racism I've ever seen was in the US.

Just wait a bit ...

 

I thought you were a stickler for accurate and complete data

 

Argument ad populum fallacy with the "well recognized."
The "book of fiction" is an ad hominem fallacy.

 

Really and look at this lil ditty

Hypocrisy Cleary some data is not worthy of discussion, right Bowerbird

 

So how does your cops stop bad guys with guns?


Why are they armed, I mean Australians are so ANTI -GUN right

 

Obviously it’s a theory, just like your “it’s poverty’s fault” is a theory but I’ll be happy to explain my position as I believe it’s the only one which adequately explains the evidence.

Negroids, caucasoids and mongoloids evolved differently for tens of thousands of years. That’s not up for debate. This is evidenced by hundreds of different factors ranging from pigmentation to skull size and shape to difference in musculoskeletal structure etc etc.

It’s much more difficult to change a physical trait like brow shape within a population than it is to change a psychological/mental trait within a population as physical attributes are far more immutable characteristics. I would proffer that the black population exhibits more violent/aggressive behavior because they evolved that way and in a different fashion than whites and Asians.

Now why did that happen? Well there’s a couple factors, but the primary factor being agriculture. All three peoples (mongoloid, caucasoid, negroid) originally, and for hundreds of thousands of years, were hunter gatherers. What did this mean? This means that you traveled all the time, you had little to no set defensive structures and you CONSTANTLY have to fight to survive. There is zero time for intellectual pursuit because you constantly have to fight to defend yourself against the elements, predators, you have to fight for food and you have to fight other people in your group for dominance in order to survive long enough and be dominant enough so that you are able to attract a mate and reproduce... hopefully many many times.

Who attracted mates in this paradigm? The strong, the fast, the ones with physical prowess because that male could protect his mate and provide food and the necessities of life. Furthermore typically in that paradigm the most dominant male wins. That male is usually the most aggressive, physically imposing and extreme of all of the males. The weak males and the males who are perceived as threats to the dominant male either die, are killed off or simply not allowed to reproduce.

In summation within a Hunter gatherer society the attributes which are rewarded with mates and as such pass their genetic code down the line are the most dominant physically imposing usually hyper violent individuals.

That was true for all three races however caucasoids and mongoloids invented and used in prolific fashion agriculture 10-15,000 years earlier than the negroids did. They stopped roaming, they installed defensive structures for themselves and became farmers. This gave them time to pursue intellectual causes.

Now who succeeds in this paradigm? You don’t need to be the most physically imposing or hyper aggressive or overly dominant to succeed within the agriculture paradigm. You’re not constantly in a physical confrontation for your life and the lives of your family. You don’t constantly have to fight for food. In fact it’s better to be smart. Because you can produce MORE food and better resources if you’re smart and have an increased intellect. Moreover being aggressive to others doesn’t really benefit you because you now live in a community where you need their help and they need your help for your farms to make it.

So the people within the agriculture paradigm were valued for their intellect and cunningness and willingness to work with their peers and less for their physical prowess and aggression.

That means for 10,000-15,000 years those traits were bred into the caucasoid and mongoloid populations while the negroid population continued to breed for physical prowess.

(And I’m going on and on now so I’ll start to wrap it up and make this last point quickly.)

This evolutionary fact was only exacerbated by the fact that Africans have kept slavery since the beginnings of recorded human history. What do you want in a slave? Do you want a smart, cunning slave? No. You want a big brute who can work day in and day out and never question why. So you kill off or don’t allow the smart slaves to procreate. Exacerbating the original problem.

This also explains why blacks represent a grossly disproportionate amount of the professional athletes as well as their propensity for violent crime.

 

I think savoury is selective ignorance. Voluntary, of course.

 

Ask someone who's been paying attention.

 

I'm not surprised.

 

Guns don't shoot themselves, Epstein didn't hang himself.

​