Thats still not the same data used to compile national fbi crime stats, sorry. You guys are hilarious.
The US Murder Rate Is on Track to Be Lowest in a Century
- Thread starter Tinark
- Start date
Thats still not the same data used to compile national fbi crime stats, sorry. You guys are hilarious.
Quetzal
New member
Alright enough. One of two things is occurring here. First, all of the sources Tin and myself have presented are fabricated in a huge scandal across all police stations in an attempt to do... what? Make us look good? To lure unsuspecting libbies like me into a false sense of security? For what?
Or, the statistics collected and presented, while not perfect, offer an abstract that illustrates the murder rate is declining. This can be due to any number of different things, that is a different discussion entirely (should we ever get there).
Which of these sounds more believable?
:wave2: Yall have fun, youve already been proven wrong.
Tinark
Active member
If you ignoring the non-city non-state data I have presented is being "proven wrong", then I'm guilty as charged.
Tinark
Active member
Did you even read what I wrote? I was telling Quetzal that the data he presented is compiled in part by reports from cities/city law enforcement agencies, which you don't trust.
We don't have to trust any cities or law enforcement agencies because, which you simply refuse to acknowledge, there are other sources of data that don't come from cities or law enforcement agencies.
Quetzal
New member
I want to use this thread as an example and go on a small soap box. This was a great discussion. I was really enjoying this. Sources were flying, numbers were being debated, and (for the most part) it was constructive! A4T might have a point about local records so I was attempting to find some national records or alternatives. It's a shame that by the time I came back she had all but thrown in the towel on the discussion.
It isn't always about being right and that happens so often here. I am guilty of it, too. But A4T demonstrated why that kind of mentality is counter productive to debate. She was only interested about being right, being acknowledged and patted on the head for a job well done. Unfortunately, it didn't happen and she would rather drop the topic instead of admit there might just possibly be another perspective that might hold weight, too.
That's too bad.
Only if they represented equal percentages of the population. Suppose there are five white people for every one black person.
If a criminal is not racially biased, he should be victimizing five times as many white people as black people.
But if he's white only one in six victims are of the other race, even without any bias.
And if he's black, five of six are of the other race, again without bias.
But racists can fool a lot of people, especially, if they can take advantage of the fact that black people tend to be charged with more severe crimes for the same act that whites tend to be charged with lesser offenses.
Tinark
Active member
For each individual crime committed, yes. However, there are 5-6 times fewer blacks, so we'd expect 5-6 fewer crimes committed by the entire group (all else equal), so it automatically balances out: 5-6 fewer crimes committed, with each individual crime 5-6 times more likely to be against a white.
musterion
Well-known member
Thank you for finally confirming the simple point of the graphic, idiot: blacks - the minority - statistically commit more violent crime against whites - the majority - than vice versa. You are dismissed.
As you just learned, that's what always happens, even if there's no racism involved. A black criminal, if he's totally unbiased, would always commit more crimes against white people, as long as there are more white people.
Suppose he randomly selects without regard to race. In that case, he'll have about 6.15 whites for every black victim. So will a white criminal.
However, your graphic shows that the ratio is only about 5. So blacks tend to pick their own group to victimize, for whatever reason. It turns out that whites do also, but not quite as much as blacks, which explains the disparity mentioned above. You have, as the FBI has repeatedly pointed out, more to fear from criminals of your own race.
Here's the reason you keep tripping yourself up, in your modification of Tinark's comments:
Your change in red. But that's an error. He had it right the first time. For all criminals a random victim selection means that a white person will be chosen about 6.15 times as often as a black person. Regardless of who does the crime. You're so eager to blame black people, it colors everything you think, even math. All you have to do, is do the numbers, and you see the point.
Assuming you're rational. Bad assumption, maybe.
And yes, the larger number of black criminals is cited in the classic case of assuming correlation proves causation. In fact, blacks, adjusted for economic status, are more like whites of the same condition.
Extremely Disadvantaged Neighborhoods and Urban Crime
Social Forces
Volume 75, Issue 2
Drawing on Wilson (1987), this article assesses two hypotheses concerning the relationship between neighborhood disadvantage and crime: (1) extremely disadvantaged neighborhoods have unusually high rates of crime; and (2) local structural disadvantage is equally important in influencing crime in black and white neighborhoods. Hence, racial differences in structural disadvantage account for black-white differences in crime across communities. To test these hypotheses, we examine 1990 census and crime data for load areas in the city of Columbus, Ohio. The analysis lends substantial support for both arguments, particularly for the influence of structural disadvantage on violent crime.
Again, this means something, only if you are able to rationally think about the issue. So, that's probably not going to affect anyone who was fooled by the opening graphic. The most pernicious result of all this is the fact that you and others like you, will use your illusion to label people as groups and treat them as if they were all the same. Hence, ignorant blacks will cite the above as evidence that you can't trust whites, and ignorant whites will use the same as evidence that blacks are untrustworthy.
Barbarian notes why racists have it wrong:
As you just learned, that's what always happens, even if there's no racism involved. A black criminal, if he's totally unbiased, would always commit more crimes against white people, as long as there are more white people.
Musty still doesn't get it:
Horsefeathers. You've let your prejudices overrule whatever common sense you might have.
The vast majority of violent crime against whites is by whites. That's just a fact. The vast majority of violent crimes against blacks is by blacks. There are slightly more whites attacking blacks than would happen if all victims were randomly chosen, but not really enough to draw many conclusions.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc...f_vicitm_by_race_and_sex_of_offender_2013.xls
Dry your eyes. Statistics are what they are. You are not being picked on, and black people as a group are not out to get you.
I realize this is a shock for you. But reality is not required to conform to your fantasies about race.
As you just learned, that's what always happens, even if there's no racism involved. A black criminal, if he's totally unbiased, would always commit more crimes against white people, as long as there are more white people.
Musty still doesn't get it:
Horsefeathers. You've let your prejudices overrule whatever common sense you might have.
The vast majority of violent crime against whites is by whites. That's just a fact. The vast majority of violent crimes against blacks is by blacks. There are slightly more whites attacking blacks than would happen if all victims were randomly chosen, but not really enough to draw many conclusions.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc...f_vicitm_by_race_and_sex_of_offender_2013.xls
Dry your eyes. Statistics are what they are. You are not being picked on, and black people as a group are not out to get you.
I realize this is a shock for you. But reality is not required to conform to your fantasies about race.
Mocking You
New member
The raw numbers show more murders by whites against whites than blacks against whites. But if you look at the percentages you see this:
90.1% of black victims of murder were killed by blacks.
83.5% of white victims of murder were killed by whites.
13.6% of white victims of murder were killed by blacks.
7.6% of black victims of murder were killed by whites.
Tinark
Active member
You are the racist moron posting a graphic whose "correction" for population size was such a basic mistake any middle schooler could've easily spotted it. If you had attended a public school instead of a home school you'd of spotted it, brain damage not withstanding.
Crime is trending down for a simple reason. Crime is mostly something younger people do, and the aging of the boomers is bringing down the crime rate.
No need for elaborate excuses about lying police. It's just what is happening now. Likewise, the rise in crime in the 60s was because there were more young adults.
But one would expect, just on probabilities, that there would be more whites assaulted by blacks than blacks assaulted by whites. This would happen even if victims were chosen entirely at random.
Only if there were the same numbers of each would this not be the case.
No need for elaborate excuses about lying police. It's just what is happening now. Likewise, the rise in crime in the 60s was because there were more young adults.
But one would expect, just on probabilities, that there would be more whites assaulted by blacks than blacks assaulted by whites. This would happen even if victims were chosen entirely at random.
Only if there were the same numbers of each would this not be the case.
musterion
Well-known member
DOJ statistics are only valid when you agree with them, huh.
Musty, if the math is beyond your ken, why not just do a simulation and watch the results? Start with a population that has about 6 whites to every black. Then pretend you're a black criminal, and randomly choose one person. Repeat about a hundred times, noting the race.
Then pretend you're a white criminal and do it again. See if there's a difference.
You'll find the white criminal mostly ends up victimizing whites. So will the black criminal.
But the black criminal will be attack whites much more often than the white criminal attacks blacks.
Obviously blacks are selectively targeting whites. (WFTH-I)
Then pretend you're a white criminal and do it again. See if there's a difference.
You'll find the white criminal mostly ends up victimizing whites. So will the black criminal.
But the black criminal will be attack whites much more often than the white criminal attacks blacks.
Obviously blacks are selectively targeting whites. (WFTH-I)
Obviously there is.
And nothing causes racial tension today more than calling one's attention to what is actually going on in front of our own nosese.