Ban Cities Not Guns…?

by Steve MacDonald

A quick look at violent crime, how it has improved, and where it is not improving.

Who is it that runs most major cities?  Who want’s us all corralled into urban areas?  I think the answer to both of those questions is (overwhelmingly) Democrats.  Just saying.

H/T JR Hoell

Leave a Comment

  • IWKAGGP

    “Banning cities’ is an excellent solution in theory. But if we did “ban cities” all those people would have to go somewhere. Which would cause a whole host of other problems, like wiping out what open space and pristine natural habitat we have left in this country(assuming all those city folk would have to live somewhere.) Since we know that “banning cities” ain’t gonna happen in the real world, listening to the guys actual solution in the last few seconds of the video sounds like a good place to start to me! He highlights all the REAL problems – those pesky, difficult-to-solve problems. And when you consider that almost all people who work for big media work and/or live in those large urban areas he’s pinpointing – this video is a real eye-opener. Is it any wonder the media doesn’t want to mention these stats or tackle the real problems. It’s so much easier to pick on the “toys”(i.e. guns) of those folks who live elsewhere(i.e. everywhere that is not a major urban area.) I’ve posted this on my facebook wall – we’ll see how it is received.

    • http://www.GraniteGrok.com/ Rick Olson

      Dan, I think “banning cities” was rhetorical. As was my suggestion a couple of years back that we, “ban doctors and Hospitals,” citing the exponential rate that people die in Hospitals due to tertiary infection and malpractice, versus guns.

      I observe that Liberal-progressives don’t give a fig about people in general. Operating on the emotion of the moment, they spout platitudes for liberal causes and throw some money around, but most often don’t face root causes. When you see the Hollywood left throwing money around for starving children and Hurricane Sandy Aid, there is most-notably always, something in it for them.

      Take Mittens Romney. (yeah, do note the linger disdain for his candidacy) Here is a guy that was villified for being uber rich…and the Hollywood elite were right in there elbow to elbow slinging those same arrows. But the unvarnished fact is, when it comes right down to it, Mitt Romney, (The man) has spent considerable wealth to improve the lives of others…not only that he has given of himself personally, genuinely and in earnest to the charities and causes he supports.

      Tackling poverty, education and economies in urban areas is often roadblocked or challenged by those who come to the table with their own solutions…Education=schools=Unions and their Wealthy hacks; Jobs = Unions, set-asides and economic exclusions. Infrastructure improvements = City hacks more expense…the list goes on…It is clear the problem is identifiable, but those who come to the table with a solution, come with a price tag nobody can afford.

      • nhsteve

        Rhetorical, yes. Although one of my Facebook followers suggested we ban Democrats instead.

    • nhsteve

      I think someone said we could fit the whole world in Texas so I’m willing to bet that there is ample land and space available for urban dwellers here and there. Although, truth be told, I was being rhetorical- the data clealry sources a majority of violent crime to urban areas, where people are discouraged from self defense, and since big city liberals refuse to soften gun laws to allow law abiding citizens to defend themselves, banning cities would be (rhetorically) more effecive than banning firearms.

      You are right about it being an eye-opener but then it suggests things they don’t want to see so if must fall into the category of extrmiest propoganda. Cities being the last true bastion of violent crime has never been an adequate motivation for big city mayors (or urban media types) to drop their false anti-gun gods for the light of truth–even if it would reduce crime and save lives.

      Perhaps we could trade the urbanites (and their liberal leaders) to Canada in exchange for oil. They could have socialized medicine, wide open green spaces, start their own utopian commune, and we could have incandescents, fossile fuels, Coal, Fracking, prosperity, lower crime, larger sodas. and a smaller government willing to leave us the hell alone.

      Banning cities seems more likley, rhetorical or not.

      • IWKAGGP

        I’d rather leave the liberal urbanites in their dirty, congested cities and flee to Canada myself where there’s plenty of land and water to hunt and fish on. You’re right about the fact that cities are more violent not being a good motivator for the anti-gun lawyers. I’ve seen the big signs on the walk from the T-stop to Fenway . . . All they want to do is to blame states with liberal bun laws like NH and VT for THEIR crime problems!

  • ProtectthyStudent

    Many city folk are un-armed I would expect. That would make them easy targets for voilence. We don,t hear too much of criminals traveling to the rurals to rob and rape, because they wouldn,t be treated to well with all the gunowners. Americans stop 6500 crimes everyday by being gunowners.

    • nhsteve

      True. And why travel afield when there are unarmed victims aplenty right around the corner?

  • Pingback: Week Ending Jan 6 2013 Blog Post Roundup « Live Free or Die

  • Pingback: America’s Incubators of Social Pathology — GraniteGrok

Previous post:

Next post: