When we leave the discussion is the moment when the nuts win the discussion.

Though I admit what's the point in debating a group that can't debate through the use of ordinary debating rules. Our legitimate scientific facts are just labeled as "opinions" by them and their opinions are put forth as "facts". According to them all of reality has a "liberal agenda" and can't be trusted.
I'm sorry, but do I really need to sit around and read this moronic tripe?
Today, 72% of black children are
born out of wedlock, as are 53% of Hispanic children and 36% of white children. Back in 1965, 25% of black children were born out of wedlock, nearly one-third fewer. As a result, promiscuous rappers, prosperous dope peddlers and street gang leaders are becoming ever more influential role models. It’s probably no big stretch of imagination to correlate such grossly disproportionate crime and victimization rates with comparably staggering rates of single-parent families, those without fathers in particular
That's from the Bell article. So apparently, his thesis is that guns aren't connected to violence, because violence is going down. Guns aren't the problem at all, John R. Lott says so.
But the real problem is that increasingly children are born out of wedlock? Because that's the real cause of violence increasing dramatically? Except that it's going down???
And children out of wedlock are directly responsible for criminals becoming role models because.... Who the fuck knows?
But it all comes back to the fact that 'promiscuous rappers, prosperous dope peddlars and street gang leaders' are now role models? Can we possibly get a more racist, hackneyed, clichéd ignorant perception of black people?
Can we ignore the fact that James Cagney spent most of his career portraying charismatic criminals, a role dabbled in extensively by everyone from Sinatra up and down? That John Dillinger, Jessie James, Bonnie and Clyde were elevated to folk heroes? I'm sorry, weren't Elvis and the Rolling Stones trading in sex and sexuality, weren't rockers known for promiscuity? What do we think all those groupies were about? Weren't they all role models?
But no, Larry Bell can't be bothered with all that. The problem is black people and their insatiable promiscuity leading inexorably to criminality. And along the way, I think he's got a problem with those damned kids and they need to get the hell off his lawn.
So what do we get here? First, a genuine fraud and forgery artist with emotional problems is put forward as a credible source. Everyone knows about John R. Lott! There was a thread on John R. Lott a couple of days ago on this very board! But when that gets called,
the ante gets upped by putting forward a racist fucktard as a credible source?
And you have the nerve to call me on walking away in disgust?
Forget it. If I stick around for this shit, I will end up saying something that gets me kicked or banned, and I would rather that didn't happen.