Half the US homicide rate is because of blacks

I wasn't alive in the 1960's but I seem to have heard something about race riots and violent state government reactions to desegregation... People don't exist in a vacuum and racism doesn't end just because congress passes a law. There was also a mistaken move to put poor blacks in dehumanizing buildings called "projects", which didn't help any. And the CIA deliberately introduced heroin into black communities. So... read some history and get a clue.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

They're more likely to get arrested and go to jail for doing so, that much is certain. Not sure if the actual rate of sales is higher - and kind of doubt that it is.

Is that really a thing? I thought that was just a bad stereotype from Traffic.

 

You do not seem terribly serious about getting real answers to your questions.

This needs some further support as such, and also to be placed in relevant context.

It really is not tenuous at all. It does not necessarily mean that every time any particular group of people gets richer their crime rate immediately decreases, but large scale comparisons across groups with very different socioeconomic status need to control for that to be credible on their face.

It means that comparing poor, black crime rates to rich, white crime rates doesn't put you in any position to attribute any difference in such rates to race. You have to also control for wealth.

I don't see where you have established this.

You - again - have not established those assertions as facts to begin with, and again are mixing contexts: comparing one rural state with happenings in urban ghettos. You would need to adjust the incomes for purchasing power for this to even begin to look serious.

Then you clearly have a lot of reading and experiencing and seeing to do before your perspective will rise to the level of anyone else needing to take it seriously.

Even if that's the case - and you have yet to establish such - that would still beg the question of whether the root cause is the centuries of racist oppression that have left blacks in a bad state.

 

Well, regardless of what it seems, I'm very curious as to why negroes tend to be a violent and dangerous bunch.

Well, it is a fact that society became significantly more prosperous economically after WWII, but looking at any set of DOJ or FBI statistics from 1960 on, one notices that crime also increased significantly, contrary to the "poverty causes crime" mantra. Explain what you mean by context.

There are 3 times more white people living in poverty than blacks, yet instead of committing far more crime than poor blacks, they commit far less. It appears that even when socio-economic status is adjusted for, blacks commit significantly more crime.

Adjusting for poverty doesn't seem like a valid procedure anyway because poverty and crime can also be the result of some common underlying cause, rather than one causing the other.

Rural blacks commit significantly more crime than rural whites, but I think adjusting for poverty is a dubious procedure anyway.

How so? Because I disagree with you?

But how can there be "racist oppression" against blacks, when they have even more advantages and opportunities for success than whites? Are you saying that blacks shouldn't take responsibility for their own actions because of some historical event that occurred in the distant past?

 

From 1940-1980, blacks went from being 87% poor to 27% poor, yet their crime rate relative to whites increased substantially.

Maybe it's because blacks are more prone to violent crime and generally offer more reasons for probable cause that they are subjected much more frequently to "investigatory stops." Until you've ruled that possibility out, you're just assuming cause and effect here.

I don't. I just want to understand why blacks commit over 50% of the homicides in the US. For your information, I'm writing a report and need all the information I can possibly get.

 

I don't see why it's necessarily meaningless. If we want a safer society, I think knowledge of blacks' greater criminal propensity is of the utmost importance, especially when it comes to policy implementation and police initiatives to reduce crime.

 

Discuss what? Gang culture? I mean, surely you're not contending that poor black families, especially the mothers and grandmothers supporting most of them, are the ones out there fueling the homicide rates?

There were at least 30,000 gangs and 800,000 gang members active across the USA in 2007, up from 731,500 in 2002 and 750,000 in 2004. By 1999, Hispanics accounted for 47% of all gang members, Blacks 34%, Whites 13%, and Asians 6%.
www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gangs_in_the_United_States

Or maybe you want to discuss whether or not statements like the below are biased or not? Should gangs receive better protection or help in the public-perception department, like some ethnic and religious groups, or are they doing fine on their own in combating stereotypes?

Modern urban street gangs have evolved into tribal organizational structures. These new urban tribes have developed into a subculture in the streets of the urban jungle. They claim territory, are self-supporting, have their own language and customs, and establish their own rules and codes of conduct. Their customs are passed to new members by rites of passage from generation to generation, thus ensuring the continuance of the gang. Gang members identify themselves as a people that is separate from the rest of society. [...] "The culture of the prison is now the culture on the street. It's spilled over because so many gang members do time then come home. The culture is 'F### you. You get in my way, you're dead.' And they don't even think twice about it before they kill someone, or think about it again after they've done it."
http://people.missouristate.edu/michaelcarlie/what_i_learned_about/gangs/culture.htm

Judging from news accounts like below, I'd say gang culture is prospering in terms of being a major influence in the cities it occupies. No need to place it on an endangered society list of whatever multicultural institute might keep watch over such matters.

Chicago is in the grips of a deadly gang war. At least 275 people have been killed in the city so far this year and many more have been shot, many of them innocent bystanders to the gang violence. Among the latest victims were 12- and 13-year-old girls shot Tuesday night. They survived. Sgt. Matt Little leads one of the teams in Chicago's Gang Enforcement Unit. There are about 200 such officers in the city-- versus 100,000 gang members. "Almost all the violence we're seeing now is from the gangs," Little said. "When there's a shooting we'll respond to the shooting. We'll figure out where we believe the most likely area for retaliation is and we'll work that area trying to both prevent retaliation and possibly build a case on offenders."
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_1...olice-sergeant-tribal-warfare-on-the-streets/

 

Yes you and the others of your gang banned me for more then one month. All that was a caprices of your gang. I did not say any thing inflammatory but you are making things hp , you must have a mental problem , I don't gibe a dam if you ban me again , there are other forums of higher quality " I think this, coupled with the warning you have already received from me for your" In this quote you are a lair. How could you warn me since I have not used this forum for over one month
Shame on you.
So go on ban. me use your power little man.

 

Volodmyrr,

Archie Bunker lives. Not surprisingly, no one is surprised.

I think that this need of yours to disparage others in order to to inflate your own self esteem accounts for over 50% of your reason for opening this thread. In fact, odds are, if some of the folks here - James R, spidergoat, String, quadraphonics, Bells, me, or any of the others - turned out to be Black, I think there is a 75% probability that you would be surprised. Owing to nominal sampling errors, I would give that a standard deviation of 3.3...3%. Furthermore, given your tendency so far to dig your own hole, I think that as time goes one you will asymptotically approach the 99.9...9% probability of actually being a racist. Furthermore, the likelihood that you would willingly and without reservation openly express these remarks --- in an all-Black urban American setting, say, in a crowd of 100 or more entirely and solidly Black people, that is, of 99.9...9% pure Black ancestry -- that the likelihood of your desire to publicly disparage them would asymptotically approach 0.0...01%, that is, the expected value of your willingness to do so would converge from the right to zero, upon your repeated reflection of the psychological consequences of such a scenario actually taking place.

Furthermore, we can do the math, and apply statistics and numerical analysis from entirely Black mathematicians, and reach ENTIRELY THE SAME CONCLUSIONS about you as the math provided by entirely White mathematicians, or Hispanic mathematicians, or any other geographically, ethnically or physically distinguished population. We can go to Far East, the Tropic of Capricorn, or the fjords of Scandinavia and seek professors of math with every amount of melanin, every shape of hair follicle or structure of nostrils, and guess what: we will get exactly the same answer: odds are much, much greater than 50% that you are an actually a 100% thoroughbred racist.

Which means what? That you are a fool, nothing more. You want to play games with numbers? Start here. Place a rubber band on your wrist. Beneath it, a sensor connected to a counter. Every time you have a hateful thought about a another person on account of their complexion or race, snap the rubber band. (Make sure to make it sting. You have to make it really hurt, or there is a 99.9...9% chance you will fail miserably and live out a lonely life of self-loathing, only to die alone with not even 1.0 people to mourn your loss.)

At the end of the day, collect your counts. Tally them. Place the daily totals in spreadsheet columns alongside the numbers you are eagerly collecting about Black crime vs White crime. Keep coming to this thread. Report to us the index of correlation between your own column of numbers and the crime statistics you are keeping. When ever the correlation drops, I will personally direct you to resources such as the USDOJ or Southern Poverty Law Center, where you can begin to learn how BLACK AND WHITE AND EVERY OTHER COLOR OF PERSON are trying their best to cure you of your disease. Whatever you do, don't give up. Just admit that you're a pathetic asshole who needs a little hatred to be able to face the day, and you're off to a good start.

When you have a page or two filled out in the spreadsheet, print it out. Make an appointment to see a clinical psychologist. Print out this thread and take both sets of paperwork to your first therapeutic encounter.

After that, just follow the doctor's orders, and everything will be fine. Racism may be mortal, but it's not incurable. It does, of course, all boil down to the probability that you will ever act on your latent desire to be a decent human being. Now: what are the odds of that happening? Don't worry, we're not sticklers for accuracy here. If it make you more comfortable, you can round to the nearest percentage point. After all, we wouldn't want you to feel bad.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

It's a well-established fact that poverty decreased for all groups since 1959, as reported by the US Census Bureau. However, while the level of negroid wealth increased, negroid criminality also increased, further highlighting the tenuous relationship between poverty and crime. It seems that another explanation of negroid criminality is needed, such as low intelligence, high testosterone or propensity to psychopathic behavior.

That black criminality is significantly higher than white criminality is something that has been well-known since 1900, when people first began keeping accurate records. Do I really need to waste my time showing you crime statistics that are readily available at your fingertips? Black skin and percentage of negroes is the single biggest predictor of violent crime, and that's only because of the statistically well-established positive correlation between blacks and violent crime, especially homicide.

I have already presented statistics from the US Department of Justice (1980-2008) demonstrating that the majority of homicides in the country (52.5%) are committed by blacks and that this has held true for almost 30 years. Are you asking me to do your homework for you? Do you have any proof that blacks commit less homicide than is reported by official government statistics? If so, please share.

 

I actually don't hate anyone and I'm not trying to slander your race. I'm just trying to figure out why so many negroes behave like such violent beasts and with no apparent reason.

 

Then look to scientists like Rushton, Eysenck and Darwin. Even philosophers like Kant, Hegel and Schopenhauer.

Backs have more testosterone, denser bones and higher fertility. They also spend less time in the womb than whites or Asians yet emerge more physically developed. They are less able to postpone gratification.

Consider a subject like athletics where the physical differences are more apparent and measurable... less easier to deny. I've actually heard liberals argue that blacks run faster than whites because they are poorer. Sound familiar?

Why is it that whites make up the majority of the poorest yet neither commit more crime per capita or produce more athletes?

White liberals entire objection to the subject rests on the publication of one book - 'Racism'(1) - by a homosexual Jew called Magnus Hirschfield in the 1930's. An attempt to invert the traditional value of racism from a positive to a negative, a book with the hidden agenda of subtlely overcoming objections to the presence of Jews in Europe, whose argument was later, in an act of intellectual dishonesty, inflated to cover the whole of the world.

One must study an animal in its natural habitat, amongst its own kind, if one is to come to an understanding of its nature. Not its socialized and emasculated version.

Darwin demonstrated that the beast is not some metaphysical being out there with horns, controlling legions of demons and a desire to lower man, but part of our physical biology, traceable in the physical morphologies that evolution has left behind in our DNA, and more visible in some races than others.

--------------

(1) 'Racism', translated and Edited by Eden and Cedar Paul, London: Victor Gollancz Ltd, 1938.

 

ahh such is the Racist use of statistics when relevance is granted to a particular cosmetic or nationality state.
It can be statistically proven that a certain trait may be useful as a predicter, however this is only a statistical tool and not a salient fact.
It isn't the color of a persons skin that predisposes them to acts of violence, it is more to do with conditioning, historical abuse to previous generations and so on. Any person regardless or race, subjected to the treatment that the African American population had to endure would surely demonstrate rebelious, sociopathic tendancies simply because of a build up of generational frustration and stress associated with a history of marginalisation and fear based, endemic, and systematic abuse. It ALSO has an awful lot to do with "implied" discrimination using statistics such as used in the OP.

Implied? why? -Simply because the color of skin is not the causation of violent crime.

Reminds me of a famous speech delivered by an American Citizen on womens rights..in 1851 as an indication of the slow but steady progress made since those times...

there is no doubt that a person of a "different than white color" will face a greater challenge in what is supposed to be an impartial justice system. Even here in Australia one would have to be a fool not to recognise the simple fact that prejudice runs deep and whilst we try to avoid bias with all good intent, it is always present.
So I Ask the OP starter and others:

"Do you believe that skin color or nationality is the cause of violent crime?"

If not then I rest my case about the racists use of statistics used in the OP.
If yes, then the reasoning better be damn good....

[video=youtube;2En0ZyjQgU4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2En0ZyjQgU4&feature=fvst[/video]
notice the lack of any reference to race in the above lyrics....

 

Frightening isn't it, when you take away the protective myths, liberal and religious, that maintain the status quo.

Is it not true that the majority of animals spend less time in the womb than humans, yet emerge more physically developed, some walking and flying within hours or days of being born? And that black children learn to crawl, walk and run faster than whites and Asians?

Why don't you celebrate that as demonstrating a physical gift?

Is it homophobic calling a homosexual a homosexual, or a Jew a Jew, or do the words have such strong connotations of negativity for you you cannot help but hear them as accusations and an insults?

Is that my fault?

Oh yes dear woman, like a pontificating school mistress, lacking subtlety and intelligence, who has no other way to deal with her own frustration at lacking a response than finger wagging and threats.

Skin color is only a marker, an indication of deeper differences, right down to the DNA. I outlined some in my previous post, which you have conveniently ignored.

Does gestation vary by ethnic group?

(Note the Asian women referred to in the above study are sub-continental Indians, not Orientals like in Rushton's work, who found that Oriental children have a longer gestation period than whites).

Does bone density vary with ethnic group?

Do blacks have higher levels of testosterone than whites?

What about sites of skeletal morphology and brain shape and structure?
Why is melanin found in the more primitive parts of the brain?

Once you start digging you can't stop.

How deep does the rabbit hole go?

 

@recidivist
So What!
If the thread was about the biological difference between mice and men then go for it. The thread is about racial violence... about how someone can claim that skin color is a cause for violence.
It is not your use of irrelevant facts that is the problem but the reason why you should use this thread to cite them...
example: do You believe that having large white teeth is a cause for violence?
or
What do you believe is the causation for violence? [ other than racist comentary ]