Yeah, this is just bullshit.
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/did-a-high-ranking-whistleblower-really-reveal-that-the-cdc-covered-up-proof-that-vaccines-cause-autism-in-african
-american-boys/

I'm really tempted to remove this from the science channel because there's no science going on here. There is plenty of lies and manufactured controversy though.

You see an occasional video of cops doing something wrong and think all cops are evil.

Have you ever seen the videos of african-americans rioting or committing hate crimes against white people, or raiding stores or slugging white people or old white people? There are plenty available. Do you then draw the conclusion that all african-american people are evil?

You probably consider yourself a critical-thinker, don't you?

You seem to think that eliminating guns will somehow eliminate mass shootings. However, there is zero correlation to the number of legal gun ownerships with the number of homicides. In fact, here are some statistics for you:

At present, a little more than half of all Americans own the sum total of about 320 million guns, 36% of which are handguns, but fewer than 100,000 of these guns are used in violent crimes. And, as it happens, where gun ownership per capita increases, violent crime is known to decrease. In other words, Caucasians tend to own more guns than African Americans, middle aged folks own more guns than young people, wealthy people own more guns than poor people, rural families own more guns than urbanites --> But the exact opposite is true for violent behavior (i.e., African Americans tend to be more violent than Caucasians, young people more violent than middle aged people, poor people more violent than wealthy people, and urbanites more violent than rural people). So gun ownership tends increase where violence is the least. This is, in large part, due to the cultural divide in the U.S. around gun ownership whereby most gun owners own guns for recreational sports (including the Southern Caucasian rural hunting culture, the likes of which aren't found in Australia or the UK or Europe, etc.); and about half of gun owners own guns for self-defense (usually as the result of living in a dangerous environment). Most of the widespread gun ownership in the U.S. predates any gun control legislation and gun ownership tends to generally rise as a response to an increase in violent crime (not the other way around).

There were about 350,000 crimes in 2009 in which a gun was present (but may not have been used), 24% of robberies, 5% of assaults, and about 66% of homicides. By contrast, guns are used as self-defense as many as 2 and a half million times every year (according to criminologist Gary Kleck at Florida State University), thereby decreasing the potential loss of life or property (i.e., those with guns are less likely to be injured in a violent crime than those who use another defensive strategy or simply comply).

Interestingly, violent crimes tend to decrease in those areas where there have been highly publicized instances of victims arming themselves or defending themselves against violent criminals. (In the UK, where guns are virtually banned, 43% of home burglaries occur when people are in the home, whereas only 9% of home burglaries in the U.S. occur when people are in the home, presumably as a result of criminals' fear of being shot by the homeowner.) In short, gun ownership reduces the likelihood of harm.

So, for example, Boston has the strictest gun control and the most school shootings. The federal ban on assault weapons from '94-'04 did not impact amount and severity of school shootings. The worst mass homicide in a school in the U.S. took place in Michigan in 1927, killing 38 children. The perpetrator used (illegal) bombs, not guns in this case.

1/3 of legal gun owners obtain their guns (a total of about 200,000 guns) privately, outside the reach of government regulation. So, it's likely that gun-related crimes will increase if the general population is unarmed.

Out of a sample of 943 felon handgun owners, 44% had obtained the gun privately, 32% stole it, 9% rented/borrowed it, and 16% bought it from a retailer. (Note retail gun sales is the only area that gun control legislation can affect, since existing laws have failed to control for illegal activity. Stricter legislation would likely therefore change the statistics of how felon handgun owners obtain the gun towards less legal, more violent ways.) Less than 3% obtain guns on the 'black market' (probably due, in part, to how many legal guns are already easily obtained).

600,000 guns are stolen every year and millions of guns circulate among criminals (outside the reach of the regulators), so the elimination of all new handgun purchases/sales, the guns would still be in the hands of the criminals (and few others).

The common gun controls have been shown to have no effect on the reduction of violent crime, however, according to the Dept. of Justice, states with right-to-carry laws have a 30% lower homicide rate and a 46% lower robbery rate. A 2003 CDC report found no conclusive evidence that gun control laws reduced gun violence. This conclusion was echoed in an exhaustive National Academy of Sciences study a year later.

General gun ownership has no net positive effect on total violence rates.

Of almost 200,000 CCP holders in Florida, only 8 were revoked as a result of a crime.

The high-water mark of mass killings in the U.S. was back in 1929, and has not increased since then. In fact, it's declined from 42 incidents in 1990 to 26 from 2000-2012. Until recently, the worst school shootings took place in the UK or Germany. The murder rate and violent crime in the U.S. is less than half of what it was in the late 1980s (the reason for which is most certainly multimodal and multifaceted).

Regarding Gun-Free Zones, many mass shooters select their venues because there are signs there explicitly banning concealed handguns (i.e., where the likelihood is higher that interference will be minimal). "With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tuscon in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns," says John Lott.

In any case, do we have any evidence to believe that the regulators (presumably the police in this instance) will be competent, honest, righteous, just, and moral enough to take away the guns from private citizens, when a study has shown that private owners are convicted of firearms violations at the same rate as police officers? How will you enforce the regulation and/or remove the guns from those who resist turning over their guns? Do the police not need guns to get those with the guns to turn over their guns? Does this then not presume that "gun control" is essentially an aim for only the government (i.e., the centralized political elite and their minions) to have guns at the exclusion of everyone else? Is the government so reliable, honest, moral, virtuous, and forward thinking as to ensure that the intentions of gun control legislation go exactly as planned?

From a sociological perspective, it's interesting to note that those in favor of gun control tend to live in relatively safe and wealthy neighborhoods where the danger posed by violent crime is far less than in those neighborhoods where gun ownership is believed to be more acceptable if not necessary. Do they really want to deprive those who are culturally acclimatized to gun-ownership, who may be less fortunate than they are, to have the means to protect themselves (e.g., women who carry guns to protect themselves from assault or rape)? Sounds more like a lack of empathy and understanding of those realities to me.

There are many generational issues worth mentioning here. For example, the rise in gun ownership coincided with the war on drugs and the war on poverty. There are also nearly 24 million combat veterans living in the U.S. and they constitute a significant proportion of the U.S.' prison population as a result of sex offenses or violent crime. Male combat veterans are four times as likely to engage violent crime as non-veteran men; and are 4.4 times more likely to have abused a spouse/partner, and 6.4 times more likely to suffer from PTSD, and 2-3 times more likely to suffer from depression, substance abuse, unemployment, divorce/separation. Vietnam veterans with PTSD tend to have higher rates of childhood abuse (26%) than Vietnam veterans without PTSD (7%). Iraq/Afghanistan vets are 75% more likely to die in car crashes. Sex crimes by active duty soldiers have tripled since 2003. In 2007, 700,000 U.S. children had at least one parent in a warzone. In a July 2010 report, child abuse in Army families was 3 times higher if a parent was deployed in combat. From 2001 - 2011, alcohol use associated with domestic violence in Army families increased by 54%, and child abuse increased by 40%. What effect do you think that's going to have, regardless of "gun controls?"
("The War Comes Home" or as William Golding, the author of Lord of the Flies said, "A spear is a stick sharpened at both ends.")

In addition, families in the U.S. continue to break down. Single parent households have a high correlation to violence among children. In 1965, 93% of all American births were to married women. Today, 41% of all births are to unmarried women (a rate that rises to 53% for women under the age of 30). By age 30, 1/3 of American women have spent time as a single mother (a rate that is halved in European countries like France, Sweden, & Germany). Less than 9% of married couples are in poverty, but more than 40% of single-parent families are in poverty. Much of child poverty would be ameliorated if parents were marrying at 1970s rates. 85% of incarcerated youth grew up without fathers.

Since the implementation of the war on drugs, there's a drug arrest in the U.S. every 19 seconds, 82% of which were for possession alone (destroying homes and families in the process). The Dept. of Justice says that illegal drug market in the U.S. is dominated by 900,000 criminally active gang members affiliated with 20,000 street gangs in more than 2,500 cities, many of which have direct ties to Mexican drug cartels in at least 230 American cities. The drug control spending, however, has grown by 69.7% over the past 9 years. The criminal justice system is so overburdened as a result that nearly four out of every ten murders, and six out of every ten rapes, and nine out of ten burglaries go unsolved (and 90% of the "solved" cases are the result of plea-bargains, resulting in non-definitive guilt). Only 8.5% of federal prisoners have committed violent offenses. 75% of Detroit's state budget can be traced back to the war on drugs.

Point being, a government program is unlikely to solve any issues with regards to guns and the whole notion of gun control legislation is severely misguided in light of all that I've pointed out above. In fact, a lot of the violence is the direct or indirect result of government programs (war on drugs and the war on poverty).

(And, you'll note, I made no mention of the recent spike in the polypharmacy medicating of a significant proportion of American children -- including most of the "school shooters" -- the combinations of which have not been studied, but have -- at least in part -- been correlated to homicidal and/or suicidal behaviors.)

The famous Black economist Thomas Sowell speaks openly about such issues, ("Are Race Riots News?") so it's definitely a larger trend.

Would you object if African-Americans were 600% more likely to be convicted for murder?

Such an outcome would be completely just and fair because they are in fact 600% more likely to commit murder. That's where the bulk of the disparity in conviction rates comes from.


I'm a liberal who wants to continue living in a liberal world. Honest data is not evil, and when liberals downplay it, they fuel the rise of the far-right. The far-right is currently sweeping European elections only because liberals refuse to be reasonable. Please keep liberalism competitive, so the far-right would no longer be able to attract moderates.

The reason there are more African-American police deaths is because African-Americans have a 600% higher average murder rate.

Liberals think the police deaths are out-of-proportion only because they're not aware of the out-of-proportion crime rate among Africans (in all countries).


(On the other hand, treat everyone as individuals, and know that genetic engineering will eventually create equality where liberalism failed.)

I have a friend that claims Jamaican American but everyone just laughs at him or rolls their eyes like "mother fucker thinks he's special". So Africans hate African Americans and African Americans hate Jamaican Americans. Who do Jamaican Americans hate? Themselves?

I just refer to him as black. I'm white. He's black. Fuck all that see that as negative.

Life can be rough and if you believe you're above racism then all you really need to do is laugh at race issues, because it's all stupid shit. Whether you ARE a racist, or an insecure person unable to deal with racism towards you, or an insecure white person feeling the loss of white right, or an OCD know-it-all that likes to point out the flaws on either side of the racial fence -- it's all stupid, and you're stupid.

All I can do is laugh nowadays. I used to get mad, because occasionally, being in a permanent (marriage) interracial relationship, I'd get blasted by other white people as a "race traitor" or frowned at by people of my woman's race, but now I just laugh it off, or give a polite smile, if I'm feeling the burn.

So, without further ado -- Hahaha! Laughter is the best FUCK YOU in the racial playbook.

Indeed Yogi, the term African American should refer to anyone who can claim total or partial ancestry from any of the native populations of Sub-Saharan Africa. I believe there's already terminology which everybody can feel comfortable with, with which to refer to, 'everyone'.

If you wanna blame someone for for having to hear the term, blame Jesse Fucking Jackson. You wanna blame someone for the word nigger or negro, it's time to start pointing fingers at the fucking Spaniards, and we have only pussies and assholes to blame for political correctness.

Historical Rift? Anyways this is somewhat true, I know two guys who are Africans who moved to America and they do have some problems with some African Americans. I've seen one get really mad at them since he's a substitute teacher as well.

BTW I don't like the term African Americans, it seems to me that people who have come from Africa recently and have become American citizens should be considered African Americans. Those who's families have been here longer than most everyone, from the original formation of our nation in my opinion would be called Black Americans. They are not Africans and they have nothing to do with Africa, but there is such thing as a black culture and a black America which some might identify with quite strongly. Also more to the point who the fuck is African? You ask someone from the Continent of Africa where he's from he says Kenya, or South Africa, or Liberia. They don't say, OH just somewhere on that GIANT FUCKING CONTINENT!

In a better society we'd simply call them Goddamn Americans and be done with it. However in our society there are some definable lines that should be respected and recognized. And hopefully and eventually overcome completely.

Obama has gone above and beyond the usual bureaucrat when it comes to making his own rules and to hell with anyone who wants to oppose him. The media doesn't challenge him because he's a Democrat, the Democrats don't challenge him because he's African-American, and the Republicans don't challenge him because they don't want to be a target of Eric Holder, ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, etc ad infinitum, plus they're ball-less.
So he's got free rein, he can't be re-elected and he doesn't care too much because Michelle could probably carry on where he left off.

That was very sweet. But I'm pretty sure the average latino or african american call this 'Tuesday'.

As of 2014, there are more black Americans (African Americans) serving time in prison for nonviolent drug offenses than there were slaves in 1850.

I think the reason "we do that", is because such a large proportion of our resident's roots in the United States go back no more than 100 years, and there are SO MANY different cultures and ethnicities you can encounter, especially in Urban areas. Oftentimes an ethnicity or culture will live in a specific town or part of a city and will preserve much of their culture and tradition. I guess we could pretend like everyone is the same, but there ARE differences in culture and tradition, and i think we only use those terms when we are acknowledging/talking about those things. I don't know how that differs from where you are from, but maybe the difference for us is the sheer size of the country and its diversity means we have much larger clusters of people with a shared or common foreign ancestry and so they get more attention?

However, I don't think "African American" or "Hispanic American" are used as commonly as you think, aside from the news where topics like racism and affirmative action get more exposure, and a way to delineate differences is necessary. Or when we want to figure what kind of food to eat for dinner

what seems weird about the usa as an outsider is how you are american if you are caucasian but if you are not then you are a hyphenated american. african-american, native american. Maybe its because I come from a country with the population of one of your states and the fact that we got rid of racist logos decades ago (see gollywogs) but sometimes you guys seem a little behind the times...not that I'm from a utopia or anything.

What's wrong with calling someone Negro? It used to be okay, no one was offended.
Then someone decided they were offended and it changed to 'black'. Then someone decided that was offensive, so now's it something else.
None of these 'African-americans' are from Africa. But progressives delight in dividing people. How about we call Indians 'Americans'?
Oh wait...some Indians might be offended.

...Oh-and for FUCKSAKE get rid of the prison industry in America, educate and embrace the African American and Hispanic bulk of the occupants of the same (race war continues, in the form of safety for the "LAW ABIDING"), and pick a dead city to stuff all the goddamn gang-bangers in. There are some really great humans locked-away forever there who have something to contribute to society, but the prison is nothing but a training-ground for another generation of humans who will be used to justify totalitarian control, martial law, and the annihilation of all freedoms for all of humanity.

Escape form New York would be a wonderful scenario. Let Dick fucking Cheney and his types set-up their little summer-homes there along with their residences and bases of operation.

I don't want a police state unless it has limited borders full of all the hind-brain motherfuckers in it-The rest of us can live in peace and comfort.

Legalize all drugs at the same time, and let those with weak wills, off themselves into a stupor. They won't have to steal your little X-boxes and smartphones, your vehicles and TV's, to buy their drugs. Give em all they want. I'd rather trip-over junkies than have savages invade my domicile to buy crack.