Last weekend 33 people were shot in Chicago. Urban gangland violence like that, no doubt, is what real “mass shootings” look like.
But in what is an obvious attempt to excuse this behavior, a Journal of the American Medical Association paper addressed the problem by shifting the blame to something it called “structural racism.”
This from frontpagemag.com.
The JAMA paper, which was quickly picked up by CNN as Structural Racism may Contribute to Mass Shootings and by Bloomberg as Mass Shootings Disproportionately Victimize Black Americans, acknowledged what conservatives have long been saying about gun violence:
New gun laws are not the answer to this problem.
Rightfully noteworthy, the paper stated:
There was no discernible association noted in this study
between gun laws and MSEs [mass shooting events]
with other studies showing similar findings.
Further, CNN reported:
The study found that in areas with higher black populations, mass shootings are likelier to occur compared to communities with higher white populations.
And Bloomberg added:
The findings disrupt the nation’s image of mass shootings, which has been shaped by tragedies like the Las Vegas festival shooting and Sandy Hook in which most of the victims were not black.
NOTE: Despite what political motives tells us,
the issue IS NOT gun laws, the issue IS race.
However, contrary to the immediately above comments and while “[f]aced with an immovable statistical object and the unstoppable force of equity,” the JAMA paper proceeds to blame the entire issue of gun violence on a concept it chose to call ‘structural racism.’
The study correlates urban areas and neighborhoods with high concentrations of single-parent households to mass shootings. It then demonstrates that ‘structural racism’ must be at fault because of the percentage of the population that is black.
Noteworthy:
Black people in the study are interchangeable with racism.
The study never presents—with any plausible explanation—how ‘structural racism’ causes people to shoot each other.
And the study claims that:
[R]acial residential segregation practices are predictive of various types of shootings.
Never mind that by-law our beloved country was forced to abolish segregation in 1964.
And if segregation were the issue, wouldn’t crime have been far higher during segregation than after it? ‘ just asking.
Murders actually shot up after the end of segregation. So did most other kinds of crime. (That’s not to suggest that the end of segregation was responsible. After cratering in the fifties, crime was rising sharply even before the end of segregation along with general social breakdowns in which divorce rates rose sharply as did single parent families, Protestant religious denominations declined, so did various forms of institutional allegiance and public confidence.)
Crime did not turn the corner until the middle of the nineties when, by most accounts, gentrification actually pushed black people out of some neighborhoods resulting in what leftists misleadingly described as “resegregation.”
Crime then rose sharply again in response to progressive pro-crime policies of liberals such as the elimination of bail, the mass release of criminals from prison during the pandemic, and the end of public safety due to the Black Lives Matter movement.
Segregation, real or fictional,
has nothing to do with crime rates.
[Crime rates] track more closely with pro-crime policies, whether those of the Warren Court, that began with inventing the right to a lawyer and concluded with banning the death penalty, and with its modern counterparts.
The JAMA paper, however, sticks to the central premise of anti-racism which is that any black statistical outliers represent systemic racism in action.
In the eyes of those conducting the study:
[H]igher black crime statistics can only be interpreted as the consequence of white racism even if it means describing Baltimore, a black city with a black mayor and majority black city council, as a segregated city.
Who is segregating Baltimore and Detroit, or for that matter Atlanta and Chicago? Almost all of the cities that the JAMA paper lists as the most segregated, including New York City, Buffalo, Cleveland, Milwaukee, Pittsburgh, and San Francisco, have black mayors.
The elephant in this paper: What magical “structural racism” is forcing black (democrats) communists/globalists to “segregate” their own cities and how does that cause black gangs to shoot each other in the streets?
The JAMA study does not do much except wave its arms toward generic ideas.
And the paper claims:
Future research is needed to develop more specific and sensitive markers of structural racism.
Well, Hell’s Bells, JAMA can search for ‘sensitive markers’ for the next hundred years and still be no better able to define ‘structural racism.’
Unable to even define any kind of causative factor between what it deems to be structural racism and violence, it concludes, as every study does, that more research is needed to explain its inexplicable premise.
In fact, every time this paper bumps into a statistic that contradicts its premise, it shrugs awkwardly.
Poverty is not the answer. In fact, the rate of gun violence among the highest income levels in Philadelphia, for example, was 15.8 times higher for black residents than white.
Why are wealthier black people more prone to shooting and being shot? Structural racism is the answer, we are to believe.
The anti-racism lies don’t help black people or anyone else. Gun laws don’t work. Blaming racism doesn’t work. The only thing that works is personal responsibility.
The paper claims:
A potential explanation may be related to…a higher density of black residents in certain neighborhoods.
But this excuse fails to consider low rates of violent crime in any non-black high-density neighborhood.
The cult of anti-racism insists, as the paper does, that everything can be explained by waving at the:
[N]ormalized and legitimized range of policies, practices, and attitudes that routinely produce cumulative and chronic adverse outcomes for people of color.
Rather than the adverse outcomes being the result of choices from within the community:
[C]ritical race theory [and this newer term, ‘Structural Racism’]
chooses to render black people powerless victims by
claiming that their problems all come from outside.
Falsely identifying the cause of a problem does not help to solve the problem. In fact, the problem intensifies.
It is time these social science geniuses look beyond their available list of excuses. Structural racism, like guns, does not kill people, and poverty is not generational. All are personal choices.
Final thoughts: Gun control and blaming racism are not substitutes for personal responsibility and making good choices. Does this article suggest one race is less capable than another at making good, responsible choices? If you believe so, you may be structurally racist.
