Interesting article from "AMERICAN THINKER"

Not open for further replies.
I think this is a tad off-topic. IBTL. Anyways, it should be interesting once hispanics and whites start having their own groups for recording crime rates and occurrences. Other than domestic violence charges, I almost never see a white client charged with a violent crime. Now African Americans and Hispanics, I can count on at least ten of each each year in my criminal practice.
Well Hispanics are not a race. They are either classed as white or red. There are only five races in the world* and that encompasses two of them. However, it is wise to classify them separately in crime reports and statistics as a method of identifying a group of people who commit a percentage of crimes in this country.

* At least when I went to school.
Biologically speaking, we've always been one.

Culture, on the other hand, is more diverse and has a greater effect on human behavior.
Interesting that Hispanics have been grouped as "white" when they commit gun crimes. Falsely inflates the #'s as far as " whites" committing gun crimes. FBI has stated they will begin a new category to more accurately define the individual groups.
This does not require any thinking. America is not one country but is split along racial, ethnic, socioeconomic lines. Small town person does not understand large city dweller or is concerned with their problems and same holds true the other way around. The current polarization of groups and entities is only going to make this country weaker and weaker. Unless people from different walks of life and backgrounds find common ground learn to cooperate and help each other the country is doomed. Such cooperation and understanding is very unlikely because people of those groups hang around and listen only to those just like themselves. Fifty or sixty years ago much less than 10% of people asked would be concerned if someone in their family married person from another political party today that number is probably well above 50% mark.

So if Martin and Charlie Sheen committed a gun crime, you would throw it up as Hispanic then right ? Sounds like profiling to me.
Hispanic is grouped as white because ethnically many hispanics are white or self-identify as white (around 53% on the last census I read)9. People from Puerto Rico, the Dominican Republic, and Spain are all Hispanic; but you are going to have some wide ethnic variety in that group.
Well, Hispanics are not a race....
None of this has anything to do with race.

It's all about culture, whether the individual "skin" color be black, brown, white, yellow, red.. or purple with pink polka-dots.
Spending my first 51 years in the military, that simple fact was drilled into me -- demonstrated to me -- from day-1.
Too bad that isn't the real topical theme of articles such as these.
But that's even more verboten than race.
Guys, I just don't see how we can keep this one on topic...which should be about guns, or gun rights.

Sociologically, though, I will state that income seems to be the single largest predictor as to whether a US citizen will be charged with a violent crime.

Expect close scrutiny of this thread. Clearly racist comments will be sternly dealt with.

There may be some interesting if potentially very difficult to deal with insights in those statistics, but they don't really answer the biggest, knottiest questions of gun control. To wit:

The 2nd Amendment applies fully to Inner city young black men and Hispanic 20-somethings living in the barrio -- just as it does to 60 year old white farmers and 35 year old NYC urban women and 90 year old Florida retirees.

So there's more violent crime committed by young black men? Well, that sucks. But it doesn't negate the RKBA of young black men in general. Many of them would have even more need of a lawfully carried defensive side arm than I do!

So what are we able to DO with this information?

The answer to the anti-gunners simply cannot be, "oh, it's just blacks and Hispanics."

In fact, it really points out the fact that crime rates and crime data CANNOT be allowed to used to constrain the 2nd Amendment. In the most dangerous, violent places in the world, a good person STILL has an inviolate right to arms. Trying to reduce crime is NO EXCUSE for taking anyone's rights without due process.
In America, why do we assign where a person comes from or skin color or any other straw man to statistics? What difference does it make and just what is that supposed to accomplish? In my view this just divides us more and more and solves nothing.

Having said that, and knowing that THR is about things firearm, to pick through the subject of the OP is actually an exercise in futility and divisiveness. I find the argument to be similar to assigning different values to different types of firearms with the end result being they are all demonized. One should be careful about things like that. In these times I think we all are seeing the result of the notion that we should promote our differences rather than those things that unite us.

Perhaps we should all be working toward ignoring our differences and promote our American ways and means.
Last edited:
Trying to reduce crime is NO EXCUSE for taking anyone's rights without due process.

This should be engraved in stone on the doorway to Congress and each state capitol building.
I agree with Sam

It is too easy to say ;

Crime is higher in Urban Areas
There are more African Americans in urban areas
So African American's are more disposed to gun crime...FALSE LOGIC

What is meaningful is statistics on areas, income levels as relates to crime, etc. Forget race, culture, etc.

I am glad our mods are keeping an eye on this one, it could get sticky...but I do disagree with them wanting to sub-classify white/Hispanic etc because that data by itself is not relevant.
...but I do disagree with them wanting to sub-classify white/Hispanic etc because that data by itself is not relevant.

Then classifying Hispanics as a minority and giving them breaks for college, business, etc. shouldn't be relevant either - but it is.
So what will further defining demographics do for gun rights? Whites are slipping away as a majority in this country so saying that whites aren't really criminals won't change anything ultimately when it comes to gun rights. To me this should be looked upon as an opportunity for Pro-RKBA groups and individuals to reach outside of their race an interact with folks of different races. We want hispanics being Pro-NRA and RKBA, not pro-anti.
Now, now, buckhorn, don't go looking for consistency.

Seems to me that violence in general and the majority misuse of firearms occurs with in groups that I label "sub-cultures". These exist in various locales, commonly in major cities. Seems to me that it would be common among similar life-existence groups, moreso than due to ethnicity.

("Life-existence": Family strength, finances, education, view of future improvements...)
As a retired graduate research professor, I feel compelled to inquire as to the following:

1) "How (not why) did this data reporting process come to be?"

Perhaps too, I would inquire,

2) To what extent does the current reporting process, skew the data, if at all?"

Based on the findings for the first two questions, I might ask,

3) "What, if any changes might be made to correct any misrepresentations by the data reporting, as is currently done?"

Just my take.

The following is strictly my OPINION. I have no citations or statistics to back it up.
Don't ask.

1 What this country needs is more law-abiding Black and Hispanic gun owners.
2 What this country needs is more law-abiding Black and Hispanic conservatives.
3 What this country needs is more law-abiding Black, Hispanic, and White citizens with a strong work ethic and sense of family.
4 Poverty is more of a determinant of crime than race. More Blacks and Hispanics are poor than Whites, so the crime rate tilts their way.
5 It's not race, it's economics. Whites are not better, they're just better off financially.
6 Hard-working, family-oriented citizens will vote to keep their jobs and families safe from those who would try to curtail their ability to do so. I call these people "smart voters."

Conclusion: What this country needs is more smart (pro-gun) voters.
Last edited:
Agreed that economics plays a far larger role in crime stats, so large that it makes almost all other factors moot.

Also agree that decisions, at all levels, should be made on individual merit (or lack thereof). No racial profiling, but also no "affirmative action".

Government, as a whole, likes to feed us statistics and news bytes that pigeon-hole us into one group or another, then play those groups off one another. They get us so busy squabbling amongst ourselves that we forget THEY are the real enemy. Nobody I've personally met, regardless of race, has ever made a threat to pass a law denying me civil or legal rights. Politicians, on the other hand...
What is meaningful is statistics on areas, income levels as relates to crime, etc. Forget race, culture, etc.

Marketing professionals figured this out a long time ago. Certain areas (read income levels), not races or culture support sales. If an area has a low income average obviously prices will be lower if the product is even available there. If an area has a high income level there will be more product available and the prices will be higher.

I think the only reason the gov't wants the cultural/ethnic data is so they can claim that certain types of crime are tied to these groups when the reality is, as previously stated, it has more to do with income. This type of data collection could only lead to profiling for the purpose of crime prevention. They also ID terrorists the same way by building computer programs that look for certain things like nationality or affiliations when they go through your mail and communications.

I wouldn't worry too much about it, it's just our gov't keeping us safe.
But will creating a class for FBI crime purposes, also not pull #'s from the "black" category as well as from the " white" category? I just thought the article as a whole, was quite interesting.
And, if economics predicates gun violence, was there this level of gun violence during the Great Depression? I would argue the "poor" of this era are wealthy by the benchmark of "poor" during the early 1900's. I think perhaps culture, the destruction of the family, the removal of father's from homes, , generations of young men being raised without a father's guidance,,, another intersting point is that while liberal politicians decry gun violence, actual statistics show gun violence decreasing for some time. Makes one wonder what the true motive for further gun control actually is
Not open for further replies.