Total Posts:20|Showing Posts:1-20
Jump to topic:

Selective Coverage of Violence in America

Swagnarok
Posts: 1,874
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2018 4:57:52 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
In Chicago there were appropriately 700 murders in 2016, according to Newsweek. Somewhere from 75% to 80% of homicides in Chicago were committed by gang members in 2012, according to CBS. We can probably assume with a fair degree of surety that the overwhelming majority of gang members in Chicago, and in America as a whole, not counting prison gangs, are ethnically black and/or Latino. I am assuming, for the sake of this thread, that the 75% to 80% figure still rang true in 2016. I am also going to assume that some decent portion of the remaining 20-25% were committed by blacks or Latinos.
From 2001 to 2014, "only" 486 people died in mass shootings in America, according to the New York Times, though to be fair this statistic was not taken at the very end of the year but in September 2014. For a second we'll assume that all of these were high-profile mass shootings committed by white males, and that there's no overlap with gang violence in cities like Chicago.
Going with the higher estimate of 80%, that's 560 gang-related homicides in Chicago in 2016. If in 1999, 2000, 2015, and 2016 there were 74 mass shooting fatalities or less (which, to be fair, is a pretty dubious assumption), then Chicago might've had more gang-related homicides than all the deaths from mass shootings in the United States up until that year SINCE THE COLUMBINE SHOOTING IN 1999.

Of course, the high body count in Chicago is comprised of many small incidents not significant enough to make the national news. Therefore, it can be easy for one to be unaware of the situation in Chicago. Mass shootings, meanwhile, are plastered all over the news.
The result, then, is that many liberals falsely assume "angry white males" are responsible for most of the violence in this country, allowing them to conveniently overlook (or downright ignore) what the actual crime statistics say. Whenever one dude plowed his car through a crowd at Charlottesville and killed ONE person, it was pointed to as the definitive proof that "Right Wing Terrorism" by scary racist whites like Dylan Roof is a big problem.
"Chris, I'm worried, with this killer on the loose. If I die, they might find some things. Strange things. Things that don't make sense to you."
"Umm, okay?"
"And there's gonna be some talk. Nasty talk. I just want you to know from me, it's all going to be out of context."
"I don't understand."
"IT MEANS that if I die you gotta burn my house down! "
Bennett91
Posts: 7,920
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2018 5:32:01 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 1/3/2018 4:57:52 AM, Swagnarok wrote:


Gang violence does not represent the same ideological/personal threat as domestic terrorism. Gangs fight all the time for predictable reasons and they usually only kill each other in high crime areas. You can't predict when a person, usually white, is going to snap and shoot up a theater or a church in a low crime area.

Black on black crime is widely pointed to as a problem in the black community - but conservatives will never admit the kind of animus that compelled Dyan Roof and the Charlettsville driver has existed in their own communities for decades. They don't want to acknowledge its toxicity and how it fuels their political agenda.
The Prophet Sanders preaching the Word [https://www.youtube.com...][https://www.youtube.com...]
Swagnarok
Posts: 1,874
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2018 5:45:19 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 1/3/2018 5:32:01 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 1/3/2018 4:57:52 AM, Swagnarok wrote:


Gang violence does not represent the same ideological/personal threat as domestic terrorism. Gangs fight all the time for predictable reasons and they usually only kill each other in high crime areas. You can't predict when a person, usually white, is going to snap and shoot up a theater or a church in a low crime area.

Again, though, mass shooting fatalities across the country were lower in number over a 13 year period than gang violence in one city in one year. Spread out over all parts of the country which are not the city of Chicago, the probability of being killed in a mass shooting in, say, a Wal-Mart in rural Nebraska are virtually null. Those that do happen are statistical anomalies, which is why they make the news. This also fails to take into account that gangs can spread over a geographical area, and certainly people die from gang violence in places other than Chicago and Detroit.
Also, as a heads up, if an act of violence is not politically, ideologically, or religiously motivated, then it is not an act of terrorism by definition. Until we can determine a political motive or whatnot, the Las Vegas shooting was not an act of terrorism.

Black on black crime is widely pointed to as a problem in the black community - but conservatives will never admit the kind of animus that compelled Dylan Roof and the Charlettsville driver has existed in their own communities for decades. They don't want to acknowledge its toxicity and how it fuels their political agenda.

Again, though, people like Dylan Roof have far killed fewer blacks than other black people have, barring ye olden days when lynching was a thing.
"Chris, I'm worried, with this killer on the loose. If I die, they might find some things. Strange things. Things that don't make sense to you."
"Umm, okay?"
"And there's gonna be some talk. Nasty talk. I just want you to know from me, it's all going to be out of context."
"I don't understand."
"IT MEANS that if I die you gotta burn my house down! "
Bennett91
Posts: 7,920
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2018 6:18:42 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 1/3/2018 5:45:19 AM, Swagnarok wrote:
At 1/3/2018 5:32:01 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 1/3/2018 4:57:52 AM, Swagnarok wrote:


Gang violence does not represent the same ideological/personal threat as domestic terrorism. Gangs fight all the time for predictable reasons and they usually only kill each other in high crime areas. You can't predict when a person, usually white, is going to snap and shoot up a theater or a church in a low crime area.

Again, though, mass shooting fatalities across the country were lower in number over a 13 year period than gang violence in one city in one year.

And if you add 2016 and 2017 into the mix that's no longer true. https://www.nytimes.com... and if you look at this data its whites that are doing most of it https://www.statista.com...

Spread out over all parts of the country which are not the city of Chicago, the probability of being killed in a mass shooting in, say, a Wal-Mart in rural Nebraska are virtually null. Those that do happen are statistical anomalies, which is why they make the news.

No sh!t sherlock. You start the OP as if there's a selective agenda then you admit its based on statistical relevance.

This also fails to take into account that gangs can spread over a geographical area, and certainly people die from gang violence in places other than Chicago and Detroit.

I mentioned the difference between low crime and high crime areas. Mass shootings are more a concern than black on black crime because you can usually avoid it by not going to high crime areas. You can't predict when a person will shoot up a Wal-Mart in a low crime areas but you can expect crime in a high crime area. Blacks are killing each other with local discernible motivations, usually gang related. You can't predict what will set off a sociopath like Roof.

Also, as a heads up, if an act of violence is not politically, ideologically, or religiously motivated, then it is not an act of terrorism by definition. Until we can determine a political motive or whatnot, the Las Vegas shooting was not an act of terrorism.

So? What's your point? So it's not terrorism, neither is black on black crime. But there are plenty of other whites who's motivations are known.

Black on black crime is widely pointed to as a problem in the black community - but conservatives will never admit the kind of animus that compelled Dylan Roof and the Charlettsville driver has existed in their own communities for decades. They don't want to acknowledge its toxicity and how it fuels their political agenda.

Again, though, people like Dylan Roof have far killed fewer blacks than other black people have, barring ye olden days when lynching was a thing.

Lol what? Who holds the record for most blacks killed in modern times?
The Prophet Sanders preaching the Word [https://www.youtube.com...][https://www.youtube.com...]
Swagnarok
Posts: 1,874
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2018 6:28:29 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 1/3/2018 6:18:42 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 1/3/2018 5:45:19 AM, Swagnarok wrote:
At 1/3/2018 5:32:01 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 1/3/2018 4:57:52 AM, Swagnarok wrote:


Gang violence does not represent the same ideological/personal threat as domestic terrorism. Gangs fight all the time for predictable reasons and they usually only kill each other in high crime areas. You can't predict when a person, usually white, is going to snap and shoot up a theater or a church in a low crime area.

Again, though, mass shooting fatalities across the country were lower in number over a 13 year period than gang violence in one city in one year.

And if you add 2016 and 2017 into the mix that's no longer true. https://www.nytimes.com... and if you look at this data its whites that are doing most of it https://www.statista.com...

Okay, sure. But then again, one does not normally expect for 16 years of mass shootings nationwide to be eclipsed by gang homicides in one city in one year.

Spread out over all parts of the country which are not the city of Chicago, the probability of being killed in a mass shooting in, say, a Wal-Mart in rural Nebraska are virtually null. Those that do happen are statistical anomalies, which is why they make the news.

No sh!t sherlock. You start the OP as if there's a selective agenda then you admit its based on statistical relevance.

I did not say there's a media conspiracy. I'm saying that, whether it's deliberate or not, it's led many liberals to bizzare and misleading conclusions.

This also fails to take into account that gangs can spread over a geographical area, and certainly people die from gang violence in places other than Chicago and Detroit.

I mentioned the difference between low crime and high crime areas. Mass shootings are more a concern than black on black crime because you can usually avoid it by not going to high crime areas. You can't predict when a person will shoot up a Wal-Mart in a low crime areas but you can expect crime in a high crime area. Blacks are killing each other with local discernible motivations, usually gang related. You can't predict what will set off a sociopath like Roof.

Okay, but again: when you spread it out over such a huge area, the odds of getting caught up in a mass shooting in a low-crime area is virtually nonexistent. Conventional crime by conventional criminals in low-crime area poses about the same threat as mass shooters.

Also, as a heads up, if an act of violence is not politically, ideologically, or religiously motivated, then it is not an act of terrorism by definition. Until we can determine a political motive or whatnot, the Las Vegas shooting was not an act of terrorism.

So? What's your point? So it's not terrorism, neither is black on black crime. But there are plenty of other whites who's motivations are known.

Dylann Roof, that guy at Charlottesville who killed one person, and the occasional guy in a big city who burns down a mosque at night does not qualify as "plenty".

Black on black crime is widely pointed to as a problem in the black community - but conservatives will never admit the kind of animus that compelled Dylan Roof and the Charlettsville driver has existed in their own communities for decades. They don't want to acknowledge its toxicity and how it fuels their political agenda.

Again, though, people like Dylan Roof have far killed fewer blacks than other black people have, barring ye olden days when lynching was a thing.

Lol what? Who holds the record for most blacks killed in modern times?

After about 1960, other blacks.
"Chris, I'm worried, with this killer on the loose. If I die, they might find some things. Strange things. Things that don't make sense to you."
"Umm, okay?"
"And there's gonna be some talk. Nasty talk. I just want you to know from me, it's all going to be out of context."
"I don't understand."
"IT MEANS that if I die you gotta burn my house down! "
Swagnarok
Posts: 1,874
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2018 6:32:30 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 1/3/2018 6:18:42 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 1/3/2018 5:45:19 AM, Swagnarok wrote:
At 1/3/2018 5:32:01 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 1/3/2018 4:57:52 AM, Swagnarok wrote:


Gang violence does not represent the same ideological/personal threat as domestic terrorism. Gangs fight all the time for predictable reasons and they usually only kill each other in high crime areas. You can't predict when a person, usually white, is going to snap and shoot up a theater or a church in a low crime area.

Again, though, mass shooting fatalities across the country were lower in number over a 13 year period than gang violence in one city in one year.

And if you add 2016 and 2017 into the mix that's no longer true. https://www.nytimes.com... and if you look at this data its whites that are doing most of it https://www.statista.com...

And interestingly enough, though most mass shootings are committed by whites, less than 63.7% of mass shootings are committed by whites, meaning that they commit disproportionately fewer mass shootings. One could perhaps make the case that mass shootings committed by whites are more deadly than mass shootings committed by people of other ethnicities, though at this point I don't know if that's true.

Spread out over all parts of the country which are not the city of Chicago, the probability of being killed in a mass shooting in, say, a Wal-Mart in rural Nebraska are virtually null. Those that do happen are statistical anomalies, which is why they make the news.

No sh!t sherlock. You start the OP as if there's a selective agenda then you admit its based on statistical relevance.

This also fails to take into account that gangs can spread over a geographical area, and certainly people die from gang violence in places other than Chicago and Detroit.

I mentioned the difference between low crime and high crime areas. Mass shootings are more a concern than black on black crime because you can usually avoid it by not going to high crime areas. You can't predict when a person will shoot up a Wal-Mart in a low crime areas but you can expect crime in a high crime area. Blacks are killing each other with local discernible motivations, usually gang related. You can't predict what will set off a sociopath like Roof.

Also, as a heads up, if an act of violence is not politically, ideologically, or religiously motivated, then it is not an act of terrorism by definition. Until we can determine a political motive or whatnot, the Las Vegas shooting was not an act of terrorism.

So? What's your point? So it's not terrorism, neither is black on black crime. But there are plenty of other whites who's motivations are known.

Black on black crime is widely pointed to as a problem in the black community - but conservatives will never admit the kind of animus that compelled Dylan Roof and the Charlettsville driver has existed in their own communities for decades. They don't want to acknowledge its toxicity and how it fuels their political agenda.

Again, though, people like Dylan Roof have far killed fewer blacks than other black people have, barring ye olden days when lynching was a thing.

Lol what? Who holds the record for most blacks killed in modern times?
"Chris, I'm worried, with this killer on the loose. If I die, they might find some things. Strange things. Things that don't make sense to you."
"Umm, okay?"
"And there's gonna be some talk. Nasty talk. I just want you to know from me, it's all going to be out of context."
"I don't understand."
"IT MEANS that if I die you gotta burn my house down! "
Bennett91
Posts: 7,920
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2018 7:02:25 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 1/3/2018 6:28:29 AM, Swagnarok wrote:
At 1/3/2018 6:18:42 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 1/3/2018 5:45:19 AM, Swagnarok wrote:
At 1/3/2018 5:32:01 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 1/3/2018 4:57:52 AM, Swagnarok wrote:


Gang violence does not represent the same ideological/personal threat as domestic terrorism. Gangs fight all the time for predictable reasons and they usually only kill each other in high crime areas. You can't predict when a person, usually white, is going to snap and shoot up a theater or a church in a low crime area.

Again, though, mass shooting fatalities across the country were lower in number over a 13 year period than gang violence in one city in one year.

And if you add 2016 and 2017 into the mix that's no longer true. https://www.nytimes.com... and if you look at this data its whites that are doing most of it https://www.statista.com...

Okay, sure. But then again, one does not normally expect for 16 years of mass shootings nationwide to be eclipsed by gang homicides in one city in one year.

Why not? A city with multi-millions with high crime and lots of guns, sounds like recipe for disaster compared to people just going crazy and shooting up places. And again you're ignoring the point about motivation.

No sh!t sherlock. You start the OP as if there's a selective agenda then you admit its based on statistical relevance.

I did not say there's a media conspiracy. I'm saying that, whether it's deliberate or not, it's led many liberals to bizzare and misleading conclusions.

Again you miss the point about ideology as the threat to our country. Irony to be pointed out soon ...

I mentioned the difference between low crime and high crime areas. Mass shootings are more a concern than black on black crime because you can usually avoid it by not going to high crime areas. You can't predict when a person will shoot up a Wal-Mart in a low crime areas but you can expect crime in a high crime area. Blacks are killing each other with local discernible motivations, usually gang related. You can't predict what will set off a sociopath like Roof.

Okay, but again: when you spread it out over such a huge area, the odds of getting caught up in a mass shooting in a low-crime area is virtually nonexistent. Conventional crime by conventional criminals in low-crime area poses about the same threat as mass shooters.

And if you don't go to a high crime area the odds of being the victim of a crime goes down dramatically as well. Whats your point? I don't think you wrote the OP with a point in mind, you just wanted to say that black people commit crime.

So? What's your point? So it's not terrorism, neither is black on black crime. But there are plenty of other whites who's motivations are known.

Dylann Roof, that guy at Charlottesville who killed one person, and the occasional guy in a big city who burns down a mosque at night does not qualify as "plenty".

The irony being that you think only the publicly profiled hate crimes are the only ones occurring. https://www.fbi.gov...

And it is supremely ironic that I guarantee as you write your response defending white people for their statistically anomalous crime you can't wait to pounce on the crime of muslim terrorists as an example that they're also a threat despite their statistically anomalous crime in the US.

Again, though, people like Dylan Roof have far killed fewer blacks than other black people have, barring ye olden days when lynching was a thing.

Lol what? Who holds the record for most blacks killed in modern times?

After about 1960, other blacks.

I'll need to see a source on that.
The Prophet Sanders preaching the Word [https://www.youtube.com...][https://www.youtube.com...]
FaustianJustice
Posts: 9,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2018 7:09:09 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
After about 1960, other blacks.

I'll need to see a source on that.

This part shouldn't surprise you. The number one killer of whites in the US is other whites, the number one killer of blacks in the US is other blacks. Its part and parcel to the gang crime argument you were identifying.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Bennett91
Posts: 7,920
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2018 7:23:48 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 1/3/2018 7:09:09 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
After about 1960, other blacks.

I'll need to see a source on that.

This part shouldn't surprise you. The number one killer of whites in the US is other whites, the number one killer of blacks in the US is other blacks. Its part and parcel to the gang crime argument you were identifying.

Whats being talked about is who (individual) has the record for killing the most blacks. I imagine most violent criminals don't get past killing 3 or 4 people, even in gang related contexts. Dylan Roof killed 9. How many black serial killers have beaten that number?
The Prophet Sanders preaching the Word [https://www.youtube.com...][https://www.youtube.com...]
Swagnarok
Posts: 1,874
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2018 7:35:24 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 1/3/2018 7:02:25 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 1/3/2018 6:28:29 AM, Swagnarok wrote:
At 1/3/2018 6:18:42 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 1/3/2018 5:45:19 AM, Swagnarok wrote:
At 1/3/2018 5:32:01 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 1/3/2018 4:57:52 AM, Swagnarok wrote:


Gang violence does not represent the same ideological/personal threat as domestic terrorism. Gangs fight all the time for predictable reasons and they usually only kill each other in high crime areas. You can't predict when a person, usually white, is going to snap and shoot up a theater or a church in a low crime area.

Again, though, mass shooting fatalities across the country were lower in number over a 13 year period than gang violence in one city in one year.

And if you add 2016 and 2017 into the mix that's no longer true. https://www.nytimes.com... and if you look at this data its whites that are doing most of it https://www.statista.com...

Okay, sure. But then again, one does not normally expect for 16 years of mass shootings nationwide to be eclipsed by gang homicides in one city in one year.

Why not? A city with multi-millions with high crime and lots of guns, sounds like recipe for disaster compared to people just going crazy and shooting up places. And again you're ignoring the point about motivation.

No sh!t sherlock. You start the OP as if there's a selective agenda then you admit its based on statistical relevance.

I did not say there's a media conspiracy. I'm saying that, whether it's deliberate or not, it's led many liberals to bizzare and misleading conclusions.

Again you miss the point about ideology as the threat to our country. Irony to be pointed out soon ...

Ideology? 60 million Americans were apparently close enough ideologically to white nationalism to vote for Trump. That's kind of close to a fifth of the total population. And yet only a tiny fraction of these ever turn into right-wing terrorists or commit hate crimes.
Ironically, encouraging further Muslim or Hispanic immigration would only encourage more of these people to become radical enough to resort to violence.

I mentioned the difference between low crime and high crime areas. Mass shootings are more a concern than black on black crime because you can usually avoid it by not going to high crime areas. You can't predict when a person will shoot up a Wal-Mart in a low crime areas but you can expect crime in a high crime area. Blacks are killing each other with local discernible motivations, usually gang related. You can't predict what will set off a sociopath like Roof.

Okay, but again: when you spread it out over such a huge area, the odds of getting caught up in a mass shooting in a low-crime area is virtually nonexistent. Conventional crime by conventional criminals in low-crime area poses about the same threat as mass shooters.

And if you don't go to a high crime area the odds of being the victim of a crime goes down dramatically as well. Whats your point? I don't think you wrote the OP with a point in mind, you just wanted to say that black people commit crime.

Sure. But even if you go to a low crime rate area, the probability of randomly getting murdered does not drop so low that it's less (or at least not significantly less) than randomly getting caught up in a mass shooting, especially if you're not in a gun-free zone.

So? What's your point? So it's not terrorism, neither is black on black crime. But there are plenty of other whites who's motivations are known.

Dylann Roof, that guy at Charlottesville who killed one person, and the occasional guy in a big city who burns down a mosque at night does not qualify as "plenty".

The irony being that you think only the publicly profiled hate crimes are the only ones occurring. https://www.fbi.gov...

Hate crimes also include vandalism and arson. But as for people being victims of hate crimes, they often entail being physically assaulted, which is brutal and unfortunate for sure but not as bad as being murdered.

And it is supremely ironic that I guarantee as you write your response defending white people for their statistically anomalous crime you can't wait to pounce on the crime of muslim terrorists as an example that they're also a threat despite their statistically anomalous crime in the US.

I oppose large-scale Islamic immigration for different reasons than simply looking at what the Muslim crime/terrorism rate is presently. I'll admit, though, we could safely afford much more immigration than Europe could.

Again, though, people like Dylan Roof have far killed fewer blacks than other black people have, barring ye olden days when lynching was a thing.

Lol what? Who holds the record for most blacks killed in modern times?

After about 1960, other blacks.

I'll need to see a source on that.

"According to FBI numbers from 2014, about 90% of black homicide victims were killed by other black people."
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
"Chris, I'm worried, with this killer on the loose. If I die, they might find some things. Strange things. Things that don't make sense to you."
"Umm, okay?"
"And there's gonna be some talk. Nasty talk. I just want you to know from me, it's all going to be out of context."
"I don't understand."
"IT MEANS that if I die you gotta burn my house down! "
FaustianJustice
Posts: 9,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2018 7:46:32 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 1/3/2018 7:23:48 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 1/3/2018 7:09:09 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
After about 1960, other blacks.

I'll need to see a source on that.

This part shouldn't surprise you. The number one killer of whites in the US is other whites, the number one killer of blacks in the US is other blacks. Its part and parcel to the gang crime argument you were identifying.

Whats being talked about is who (individual) has the record for killing the most blacks. I imagine most violent criminals don't get past killing 3 or 4 people, even in gang related contexts. Dylan Roof killed 9. How many black serial killers have beaten that number?

Carl Eugene Watts, Derrick Todd Lee is a solid maybe, Henry Louis Wallace definitely ties it, and I am not certain, but I think the Belt Way snipers came close too.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Bennett91
Posts: 7,920
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2018 8:22:22 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 1/3/2018 7:35:24 AM, Swagnarok wrote:

Ideology? 60 million Americans were apparently close enough ideologically to white nationalism to vote for Trump.

Eh, perhaps in the moment they felt that way. But there has been a lot of Trump regret. I imagine only a 3rd of his original voter base still genuinly supports him.

That's kind of close to a fifth of the total population. And yet only a tiny fraction of these ever turn into right-wing terrorists or commit hate crimes.

Couldn't the same be easily said about blacks? Sure the raw numbers look bad, but as a percentage the extreme majority of black people are non-violent non-criminal. And even going off of arrests/convictions isn't a good indicator of criminality given that blacks are the most likely to be convicted yet innocent. https://www.npr.org...

Ironically, encouraging further Muslim or Hispanic immigration would only encourage more of these people to become radical enough to resort to violence.

Yes, and then we truly get to see who's the unAmerican Barbarian.

Okay, but again: when you spread it out over such a huge area, the odds of getting caught up in a mass shooting in a low-crime area is virtually nonexistent. Conventional crime by conventional criminals in low-crime area poses about the same threat as mass shooters.

And if you don't go to a high crime area the odds of being the victim of a crime goes down dramatically as well. Whats your point? I don't think you wrote the OP with a point in mind, you just wanted to say that black people commit crime.

Sure. But even if you go to a low crime rate area, the probability of randomly getting murdered does not drop so low that it's less (or at least not significantly less) than randomly getting caught up in a mass shooting, especially if you're not in a gun-free zone.

It sorta depends on where you are doesn't it? I expect house robberies in residentials, muggings in allys, gang related crimes in gang heavy neighborhoods and mass shooting in highly trafficked commercial/social areas.

The irony being that you think only the publicly profiled hate crimes are the only ones occurring. https://www.fbi.gov...

Hate crimes also include vandalism and arson. But as for people being victims of hate crimes, they often entail being physically assaulted, which is brutal and unfortunate for sure but not as bad as being murdered.

But the murders you're most concerned about are gang related. So ideologically speaking criminals killing each other is not as much a threat to the average person. Where I live it's easier to think I'll be killed in a mass shooting rather tan gang activity. Of course the odds of either are practically zero.

And it is supremely ironic that I guarantee as you write your response defending white people for their statistically anomalous crime you can't wait to pounce on the crime of muslim terrorists as an example that they're also a threat despite their statistically anomalous crime in the US.

I'll admit, though, we could safely afford much more immigration than Europe could.

And we could do it better too if we actually tried.

After about 1960, other blacks.

I'll need to see a source on that.

"According to FBI numbers from 2014, about 90% of black homicide victims were killed by other black people."
https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Ah yes, I'm aware of this stat, I misread your previous quote. But again it goes back to my point about your intention, I think the purpose of the OP is to simply point out black people as murderers.
The Prophet Sanders preaching the Word [https://www.youtube.com...][https://www.youtube.com...]
Greyparrot
Posts: 21,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2018 4:36:06 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
It's not OK to be white.
The extinction of the species is worse than the extinction of the nation, which is worse than the extinction of the tribe, which is worse than the extinction of the family, which is worse than the extinction of the individual. The second he reverses that list of priorities, he becomes a coward, and would be summarily disposed of by any civilized society that values its own survival.
Davery79
Posts: 762
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2018 4:41:07 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 1/3/2018 8:22:22 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 1/3/2018 7:35:24 AM, Swagnarok wrote:

Ideology? 60 million Americans were apparently close enough ideologically to white nationalism to vote for Trump.

Eh, perhaps in the moment they felt that way. But there has been a lot of Trump regret. I imagine only a 3rd of his original voter base still genuinly supports him.

Sorry, I have to jump in here, but the only reason you believe the above statement is because you are watching the same news channels and reading the same outlets that told you Hillary had a 95% chance of winning the presidency. The same news channels and outlets that came out with their own biased polls showing Hillary ahead 13 points right before the election. These are the same journalists that report all of the Trump regret, and jump on it when they find it. I can't believe people still don't understand the media issue we have in this country.

That's kind of close to a fifth of the total population. And yet only a tiny fraction of these ever turn into right-wing terrorists or commit hate crimes.

Couldn't the same be easily said about blacks? Sure the raw numbers look bad, but as a percentage the extreme majority of black people are non-violent non-criminal.

This depends on what your interpretation of extreme majority is. Compare that to whites and lets see if you still call it an extreme majority. (percentages)

And even going off of arrests/convictions isn't a good indicator of criminality given that blacks are the most likely to be convicted yet innocent. https://www.npr.org...

Common sense, the more blacks that are convicted, the more blacks are going to be wrongly convicted. This article and all articles related to it are misleading in many ways.
Blacks are an overwhelming majority in prison. Do I really need to cite that statistic? I just ask that you think logically when referring to these numbers in articles.

Ironically, encouraging further Muslim or Hispanic immigration would only encourage more of these people to become radical enough to resort to violence.

Yes, and then we truly get to see who's the unAmerican Barbarian.

Okay, but again: when you spread it out over such a huge area, the odds of getting caught up in a mass shooting in a low-crime area is virtually nonexistent. Conventional crime by conventional criminals in low-crime area poses about the same threat as mass shooters.

And if you don't go to a high crime area the odds of being the victim of a crime goes down dramatically as well. Whats your point? I don't think you wrote the OP with a point in mind, you just wanted to say that black people commit crime.

Sure. But even if you go to a low crime rate area, the probability of randomly getting murdered does not drop so low that it's less (or at least not significantly less) than randomly getting caught up in a mass shooting, especially if you're not in a gun-free zone.

It sorta depends on where you are doesn't it? I expect house robberies in residentials, muggings in allys, gang related crimes in gang heavy neighborhoods and mass shooting in highly trafficked commercial/social areas.

The irony being that you think only the publicly profiled hate crimes are the only ones occurring. https://www.fbi.gov...

Hate crimes also include vandalism and arson. But as for people being victims of hate crimes, they often entail being physically assaulted, which is brutal and unfortunate for sure but not as bad as being murdered.

But the murders you're most concerned about are gang related. So ideologically speaking criminals killing each other is not as much a threat to the average person. Where I live it's easier to think I'll be killed in a mass shooting rather tan gang activity. Of course the odds of either are practically zero.

And it is supremely ironic that I guarantee as you write your response defending white people for their statistically anomalous crime you can't wait to pounce on the crime of muslim terrorists as an example that they're also a threat despite their statistically anomalous crime in the US.

What are these anomalies, if you don't mind me asking?

I'll admit, though, we could safely afford much more immigration than Europe could.

And we could do it better too if we actually tried.

After about 1960, other blacks.

I'll need to see a source on that.

"According to FBI numbers from 2014, about 90% of black homicide victims were killed by other black people."
https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Ah yes, I'm aware of this stat, I misread your previous quote. But again it goes back to my point about your intention, I think the purpose of the OP is to simply point out black people as murderers.

Maybe he was.

This should all come down to demographic stats, and common sense. Yes, white people commit more mass shootings, but these white people committing the mass shootings are sick in the head, they have problems and most are beyond help. I don't care if the court ruled them competent and sane (they are not)..... People seem to forget that when it comes to stats like these, white people are still the majority race of this country, so the probability that a white person will have these mental problems is greater than minorities. It's common sense.

I am merely pointing out stats that are true but not readily available and not reported. stats (or numbers, whatever sounds better to support the agenda of the article) are spun in the news in such a way that we forget to think logically about what is being reported to us. if you think logically, you will realize all of those articles and media outlets are brain washing you.
thett3
Posts: 15,907
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2018 7:41:37 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 1/3/2018 6:18:42 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 1/3/2018 5:45:19 AM, Swagnarok wrote:
At 1/3/2018 5:32:01 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 1/3/2018 4:57:52 AM, Swagnarok wrote:


Gang violence does not represent the same ideological/personal threat as domestic terrorism. Gangs fight all the time for predictable reasons and they usually only kill each other in high crime areas. You can't predict when a person, usually white, is going to snap and shoot up a theater or a church in a low crime area.

Again, though, mass shooting fatalities across the country were lower in number over a 13 year period than gang violence in one city in one year.

And if you add 2016 and 2017 into the mix that's no longer true. https://www.nytimes.com... and if you look at this data its whites that are doing most of it https://www.statista.com...

51 out of the 90 identified in this dataset is 57%, which is lower than the white portion of the population today and signficantly lower than when the count started in 1982. On a per capita basis whites are actually under represented in mass shootings despite the meme that it's always a white guy.

It's easy to propagate misinformation like this because most people don't understand per capita, but in reality other than muslims every group in America perpetrates mass shootings at about the same rate.

To answer the OP, the reason mass shootings are so heavily reported on is because they are sensational. Terrorism is so heavily reported on for the same reason, and people are concerned about it because it's magnitude could easily increase as long as the motive remains. The only reason terrorists haven't nuked NYC or something is because they haven't gotten access to those kinds of weapons
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
kevin24018
Posts: 6,891
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2018 7:51:40 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 1/3/2018 7:41:37 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 1/3/2018 6:18:42 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 1/3/2018 5:45:19 AM, Swagnarok wrote:
At 1/3/2018 5:32:01 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 1/3/2018 4:57:52 AM, Swagnarok wrote:


Gang violence does not represent the same ideological/personal threat as domestic terrorism. Gangs fight all the time for predictable reasons and they usually only kill each other in high crime areas. You can't predict when a person, usually white, is going to snap and shoot up a theater or a church in a low crime area.

Again, though, mass shooting fatalities across the country were lower in number over a 13 year period than gang violence in one city in one year.

And if you add 2016 and 2017 into the mix that's no longer true. https://www.nytimes.com... and if you look at this data its whites that are doing most of it https://www.statista.com...

51 out of the 90 identified in this dataset is 57%, which is lower than the white portion of the population today and signficantly lower than when the count started in 1982. On a per capita basis whites are actually under represented in mass shootings despite the meme that it's always a white guy.

It's easy to propagate misinformation like this because most people don't understand per capita, but in reality other than muslims every group in America perpetrates mass shootings at about the same rate.

To answer the OP, the reason mass shootings are so heavily reported on is because they are sensational. Terrorism is so heavily reported on for the same reason, and people are concerned about it because it's magnitude could easily increase as long as the motive remains. The only reason terrorists haven't nuked NYC or something is because they haven't gotten access to those kinds of weapons

that's the exact reason, just like car wrecks, only the sensational ones make it on the news, unless it's a slow news day. They don't care about reporting, they care about reporting stuff that will make people watch. It's numbers whatever will get more people tuning in is what will be on, regardless of accuracy or truthfulness.
Bennett91 the liar http://www.debate.org...
thett3
Posts: 15,907
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2018 7:52:47 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
It takes a lot of chutzpah to use misleading statistics to lecture whites on their mythical propensity for violence when discussing shootings where they were the overwhelming majority of victims (Sandy Hook, Sutherland springs, Las Vegas, etc.)

But nobody ever faulted the left for a lack of discipline
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Ramshutu
Posts: 5,466
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2018 10:11:27 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 1/3/2018 4:57:52 AM, Swagnarok wrote:
In Chicago there were appropriately 700 murders in 2016, according to Newsweek. Somewhere from 75% to 80% of homicides in Chicago were committed by gang members in 2012, according to CBS. We can probably assume with a fair degree of surety that the overwhelming majority of gang members in Chicago, and in America as a whole, not counting prison gangs, are ethnically black and/or Latino. I am assuming, for the sake of this thread, that the 75% to 80% figure still rang true in 2016. I am also going to assume that some decent portion of the remaining 20-25% were committed by blacks or Latinos.
From 2001 to 2014, "only" 486 people died in mass shootings in America, according to the New York Times, though to be fair this statistic was not taken at the very end of the year but in September 2014. For a second we'll assume that all of these were high-profile mass shootings committed by white males, and that there's no overlap with gang violence in cities like Chicago.
Going with the higher estimate of 80%, that's 560 gang-related homicides in Chicago in 2016. If in 1999, 2000, 2015, and 2016 there were 74 mass shooting fatalities or less (which, to be fair, is a pretty dubious assumption), then Chicago might've had more gang-related homicides than all the deaths from mass shootings in the United States up until that year SINCE THE COLUMBINE SHOOTING IN 1999.

Of course, the high body count in Chicago is comprised of many small incidents not significant enough to make the national news. Therefore, it can be easy for one to be unaware of the situation in Chicago. Mass shootings, meanwhile, are plastered all over the news.
The result, then, is that many liberals falsely assume "angry white males" are responsible for most of the violence in this country, allowing them to conveniently overlook (or downright ignore) what the actual crime statistics say. Whenever one dude plowed his car through a crowd at Charlottesville and killed ONE person, it was pointed to as the definitive proof that "Right Wing Terrorism" by scary racist whites like Dylan Roof is a big problem.

Please cite your source for your claim that many liberals falsely assume "angry white males" are responsible for most of the violence in this country.

Given my understanding of people here, news broadcasts and organizations I have never seen ANY liberal claim, assert or imply that angry white makes are responsible for most of the violence in this country.

I can't think of a single liberal on this sites, on other sites I have seen, that I know, or have seen in the media that I could imagine would claim, assert or imply this either.

You may be confused by the nuance of what many arguments revolving around angry White male violence; for example perhaps you are unintentionally or intentionally confusing arguments that radicalized angry white male are more dangerous to ISIS; or pointing out that the right wing media and political are outraged by one, and use various rhetorical techniques to implicitly defend, or actively avoid denouncing the other.

Given that, it's fairly clear that your premise is either woefully unsupported and most likely untrue, if not outright dishonest; and therefore doesn't warrant further argument.
Bennett91
Posts: 7,920
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2018 10:50:58 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 1/3/2018 4:41:07 PM, Davery79 wrote:
At 1/3/2018 8:22:22 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 1/3/2018 7:35:24 AM, Swagnarok wrote:

Ideology? 60 million Americans were apparently close enough ideologically to white nationalism to vote for Trump.

Eh, perhaps in the moment they felt that way. But there has been a lot of Trump regret. I imagine only a 3rd of his original voter base still genuinly supports him.

Sorry, I have to jump in here, but the only reason you believe the above statement is because you are watching the same news channels and reading the same outlets that told you Hillary had a 95% chance of winning the presidency. The same news channels and outlets that came out with their own biased polls showing Hillary ahead 13 points right before the election. These are the same journalists that report all of the Trump regret, and jump on it when they find it. I can't believe people still don't understand the media issue we have in this country.

No, actually, I'm not looking at the same sources. Media polls are unscientific, but there are actual polling institutions.

Couldn't the same be easily said about blacks? Sure the raw numbers look bad, but as a percentage the extreme majority of black people are non-violent non-criminal.

This depends on what your interpretation of extreme majority is. Compare that to whites and lets see if you still call it an extreme majority. (percentages)

Regardless of the minute percentage difference it doesn't justify discrimination.

And even going off of arrests/convictions isn't a good indicator of criminality given that blacks are the most likely to be convicted yet innocent. https://www.npr.org...

Common sense, the more blacks that are convicted, the more blacks are going to be wrongly convicted. This article and all articles related to it are misleading in many ways.
Blacks are an overwhelming majority in prison. Do I really need to cite that statistic? I just ask that you think logically when referring to these numbers in articles.

The war on drugs has seen that many blacks are put in jail for frivolous crimes especially given the amount of selective enforcement.

And it is supremely ironic that I guarantee as you write your response defending white people for their statistically anomalous crime you can't wait to pounce on the crime of muslim terrorists as an example that they're also a threat despite their statistically anomalous crime in the US.

What are these anomalies, if you don't mind me asking?

Pretty much anything defined as Islamic terrorism in the US.

I'll admit, though, we could safely afford much more immigration than Europe could.

And we could do it better too if we actually tried.

After about 1960, other blacks.

I'll need to see a source on that.

"According to FBI numbers from 2014, about 90% of black homicide victims were killed by other black people."
https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Ah yes, I'm aware of this stat, I misread your previous quote. But again it goes back to my point about your intention, I think the purpose of the OP is to simply point out black people as murderers.

Maybe he was.

This should all come down to demographic stats, and common sense. Yes, white people commit more mass shootings, but these white people committing the mass shootings are sick in the head, they have problems and most are beyond help. I don't care if the court ruled them competent and sane (they are not)..... People seem to forget that when it comes to stats like these, white people are still the majority race of this country, so the probability that a white person will have these mental problems is greater than minorities. It's common sense.

I am merely pointing out stats that are true but not readily available and not reported. stats (or numbers, whatever sounds better to support the agenda of the article) are spun in the news in such a way that we forget to think logically about what is being reported to us. if you think logically, you will realize all of those articles and media outlets are brain washing you.

The stats can be misleading as I've pointed out. And I should point out my original response to the OP was not based on statistics or even challenging them, I was talking about the ideological underpinnings that support the terrorism/crime.
The Prophet Sanders preaching the Word [https://www.youtube.com...][https://www.youtube.com...]
Bennett91
Posts: 7,920
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2018 11:04:55 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 1/3/2018 7:52:47 PM, thett3 wrote:
It takes a lot of chutzpah to use misleading statistics to lecture whites on their mythical propensity for violence when discussing shootings where they were the overwhelming majority of victims (Sandy Hook, Sutherland springs, Las Vegas, etc.)

But nobody ever faulted the left for a lack of discipline

Seeing how the OP is trying to do the same to black people I don't terribly mind.
The Prophet Sanders preaching the Word [https://www.youtube.com...][https://www.youtube.com...]