Dallas Mayor Says He’s More Fearful Of Armed White Men Than Syrian Refugees.

originally posted by: Spider879

The mayor of Dallas is pushing back against politicians who say Americans should be skeptical of Syrian refugees, saying he is “more fearful” of armed white men than people fleeing civil war in the Middle East.

I don't think that last para is constructive. The specifics he was talking about were white gunmen who have already maimed and killed in public places, where the rationale if any, is dubious as opposed to refugees, who are on the face of it, refugees.
The questions he was being asked were tittle tattle. The Mayor made intelligent replies to what he was being asked.. that guy would make a very decent President.

originally posted by: Antipathy17
OP, maybe this just shows that the word terrorists has been nothing more than fear mongering. There are no terrorists, just good people and bad. Some just happen to be further down the spectrum.

Well as is defined terrorist are those who used violence or the threat of violence for the purpose of political intimidation, a fight that got started by a drunk or a mugger is not by definition a terrorist although all are bad people, but yes the term terrorist get thrown around willy nilly at times as to blur the meaning.
Another point that will go towards your point is, when we train and arm groups that are conducting asymmetrical warfare that blow stuff up against govt and people we don't like yet causing "collateral damage" to innocent civilians are never discribed as terrorist until they turn on us. www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: Sremmos80

Given that we already know that the process in place was flawed as recently as 2013 when at least two Iraqi refugees turned out to be terrorists, not refugees. Given what I know of the government bureaucratic process. I can't say that I trust them to have made any real changes. And high ranking officials have gone on record to have said as much.

They can't track a bunch of children who walked over the border illegally and were rounded up and put in refugee centers and supposedly processed and then failed to show up in court, and they say they can't find them now. Those are kids.

So, no, I don't trust out government to be able to track anyone they aren't particularly interested in tracking. And it doesn't strike me that they are terribly worried about any of this when anyone comes out to talk about it. Obama seems to be far more worried about scoring political points than he does that there might be terrorists using the refugees like a human Trojan horse.

If he actually conveyed any sense of urgency or realization that this might be any kind of problem ... that or the lack of security at the border, I might be more inclined to believe. But it's plenty clear he views his own populace as a bigger threat. So, until a city is vaporized, I don't think any steps to correct any security gaps will be taken.

And that means, that yes, I lack trust in my own government to provide for the common defense.

The government should fear its citizens. I know deep down though this piece is about something else entirely, propaganda piece anyone?

originally posted by: seagull
Why fear either group?

I'm a white guy, and I have a gun, or two. He's got no reason to fear me.

Fear. Fear. Fear.

Really? He is rather spineless, isn't he?

Before I even opened to look at this thread , I knew he had a (D) by his name. No , he does not really believe this. Just "kissin up" to his base..

originally posted by: seagull
Why fear either group?

I'm a white guy, and I have a gun, or two. He's got no reason to fear me.

Fear. Fear. Fear.

Really? He is rather spineless, isn't he?

I'm not sure who is the more "spineless" of the two. The guy who's scared of armed white men, or the white men who are afraid to go out in public without their guns.

That's a two-way street.

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: seagull
Why fear either group?

I'm a white guy, and I have a gun, or two. He's got no reason to fear me.

Fear. Fear. Fear.

Really? He is rather spineless, isn't he?

Before I even opened to look at this thread , I knew he had a (D) by his name. No , he does not really believe this. Just "kissin up" to his base..

So are you saying one have to have a " D " by their name to point out that such fears maybe irrational?? the point he is making is, most people do not draw the same fear of terrorism committed by locals than those committed by foreigners, no one believe that white males should be watched because they have more guns than other groups in the U.S regardless of the fact that domestic terrorism is higher among them than other groups.
And talk about scoring points with their base have heard the stuff coming from a lot of Reps lately??

a reply to: Spider879
Merely saying most politicians with a (D) by their name play up to their base just like the (R). Just different subjects. Nothing wrong with it , but watch what they say. Take everything with a grain of salt.
NM... just found my answer as to the question...I am all done here...

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: seagull
Why fear either group?

I'm a white guy, and I have a gun, or two. He's got no reason to fear me.

Fear. Fear. Fear.

Really? He is rather spineless, isn't he?

Before I even opened to look at this thread , I knew he had a (D) by his name. No , he does not really believe this. Just "kissin up" to his base..

The man is in a republican state. He already has his Democrat backers. If anything, to keep his job or be re elected, he would say things he doesn't believe to try to get some 'R love'. But he doesn't. I believe him. He sounds reasonable.

Technically I'd be afraid of any young male, whilte or black or green or yellow or gray or red or well you know.. I remember when I was looking at the stats a week or two ago, it occured to me young white males would have more access to guns simply because of wealth. The average white family has something like 16x more wealth than a black family:
www. forbes.com - The Racial Wealth Gap: Why A Typical White Household Has 16 Times The Wealth Of A Black One...

About 97% of all mass shootings are males. 79% are white male. 63% of the population is non-hispanic white. 77.4% is white.

However I WOULD attribute some of the mass shootings to white male privilege. Not as much as is politically correct, but some. This is tied to how white males feel they should have XYZ, since they're the current majority demographic. When they don't get what they feel they deserve, some of them become violent. It's equivalent to a spoiled child.

a reply to: Spider879

I'm a Hispanic man with more than a few guns.. You all know that is some scary #.

a reply to: jonnywhite

Not really. Guns are easily available to blacks and Hispanics too. They just don't get them legally if they can't afford them through the gun shop.

a reply to: Flatfish

Dude really?

Armed Hispanic immigrant with military training and combat experience.

I don't leave the house without my firearms because bad people to bad things to good people who don't think they need firearms.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: jonnywhite

Not really. Guns are easily available to blacks and Hispanics too. They just don't get them legally if they can't afford them through the gun shop.

Hey! You're talking about gang members.

Let's be clear here. I've never bought a gun through illegal channels. Also private sales are not illegal in most states.

a reply to: jonnywhite

It all depends on how you define a mass shooting.

I'm guessing those numbers would look much closer together if gang violence, where most of the nation's "mass shootings" happen, were accounted for.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: jonnywhite

Not really. Guns are easily available to blacks and Hispanics too. They just don't get them legally if they can't afford them through the gun shop.

I was looking at some numbers from what seemed legitimate site and it said 18% of black males have a gun permit. Something like 33% white males had a gun permit. My speculation was this was tied to the wealth difference. Also majority of NRA members are white. (Now I'm recalling from memory and these numbers could be off.)

I googled something else and got this:
www.pewresearch.org - The demographics and politics of gun-owning households...

The new research also suggests a paradox: While blacks are significantly more likely than whites to be gun homicide victims, blacks are only about half as likely as whites to have a firearm in their home (41% vs. 19%). Hispanics are less likely than blacks to be gun homicide victims and half as likely as whites to have a gun at home (20%).

But regional differences emerge when race is factored into the analysis. White southerners are significantly more likely to have a gun at home (47%) than whites in other regions. But because blacks disproportionately live in the South and are only half as likely to have a gun at home as whites, the overall rate for the southern region falls to 38%.

That link only backs up my statement if it also applies to males. It doesn't state explicitly gender per ethinic group, so it's hard to say if it's the same or not. I assume it probably is, meaning white males have access to guns twice as much as minorities

a reply to: projectvxn

That's why I said if they can't afford them through the gun shop. Affording them through the gun shop means passing background checks too. Sorry if I didn't make that clear enough.

And white gang members would also have a tough time doing it.

a reply to: jonnywhite

No it isn't tied to "white/black" wealth difference. Most black people tend to be Democrats who want to ban guns.

That is changing, however, and its about time.

perhaps we don't see these mass shooters in other races because when a non-white teen is having these thoughts/issues they can just join a gang and get the respect they think they deserve.

In areas of affluence joining a gang is tough.

a reply to: ketsuko

That's not what you said. You ONLY said "blacks and hispanics". But I wasn't actually offended, I knew what you meant.