3 ms·

Here are some basic facts: Half of people killed by police are white. Blacks are 25%. Blacks are also disproportionally represented amongst violent offenders.

Here are some basic facts: Half of people killed by police are white. Blacks are 25%. Blacks are also disproportionally represented amongst violent offenders. One more interesting trivia - black and hispanic cops are more likely to shoot a black suspect than white cops. Black people are 13% of US population, yet black men (6% of US population) commit 50% of homicides in the US. Thus your assumptions are incorrect and thus your conclusions may also be incorrect. It appears that white people are more afraid of being called racist than being assaulted by a person of color. http://www.dailywire.com/news/7264/5-statistics-you-need-know-about-cops-killing-aaron-bandler http://www.dailywire.com/news/7264/5-statistics-you-need-kno... http://www.amren.com/news/2015/07/new-doj-statistics-on-race-and-violent-crime/ http://www.amren.com/news/2015/07/new-doj-statistics-on-race... http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/28/5-devastating-facts-black-black-crime/ http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/28/5-devasta...

Kristine1975 10y ago
Breitbart is as far away from facts as you can possibly get. "American Renaissance" with its "race realism" doesn't sound much more reliable.
- JanezStupar 10y ago
  All the articles cite official data. I would love to link Huffpo, Salon or Atlantic, but they are just to dishonest to publish something like this.
  - chestervonwinch 10y ago
    The data is fine, but I'm asking sincerely - what is the point of the breitbart article? They present those statistics on black on black crime and lack of outrage thereof as evidence that the black lives matter movement and the left-leaning are taking advantage of white on black incidents to "advance their political power". Ok fine. This seems like an extremely cynical position to take, but going along with it, what is their implication? Advance their political power for what purpose? The subtext from the article (and more heavily from the comments) is that liberals want to take your guns, and black folks are violent people that kill each other anyway, so it's their own fault.
    - JanezStupar 10y ago
      Larry Elder frames it nicely in conservative terms: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piwaBO6U43U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piwaBO6U43U The implication is that liberals are engaging in soft bigotry of low expectations. That they are pandering to black voters for power. Another implication is that all the things that liberals are promising to the minorities that should be helping black people, such as welfare and affirmative action, end up causing more harm in the long run. Of course, I expect you to ask why? I would say one part lust for power, one part good intentions that pave road to hell and one part good old fashioned ignorance. And if you ask about motive? Just a power grab. In contemporary culture diversity is much relished. But not all of it, diversity of opinion is being shunned and anybody daring to show doubt is ostracized. If you take a long hard look - pretty much all the power structures on the west are very, very liberal/progressive (entertainment, media, school system, government and indeed politics). Since the consensus is that expanding government outreach and bringing more and more functions of society is a good thing and since the results are really not there - the liberals would either have to face their folly or instead keep doubling down. And since doubling down makes things worse - the liberals are becoming increasingly authoritarian, thus the vicious cycle is feeding itself. p.s.: In case you were asking what the motive of BLM is? I don't think they have one. Just as any other flavor of identity politics they are engaging in an us vs them discourse, which inevitably will cause them to turn on themselves. But liberals are going to squeeze as much out of them as possible.
      - chestervonwinch 10y ago
        Interesting video, thanks.
        JanezStupar 10y ago
        You might also like this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNrHW1E8hRI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNrHW1E8hRI Thomas Sowell debating policies of the last 40 years, back in 1982, it is quite interesting to see how those have turned out pretty much as he predicted and indeed even the arguments of the proponents have gone in the exactly the same direction.
_98fj 10y ago
I don't know what assumptions you think are incorrect: that people are afraid of getting killed? What I said was that situations involving guns tend to scare/alarm all involved parties. And that getting rid of the guns is easier and will likely have a larger effect than curing people of their racism.
- douche 10y ago
  Getting rid of the guns is not a realistic option. The U.S. is too big, and too diverse for blanket intrusive policies to work well. A firearms policy that makes sense in Baltimore is complete overkill in Montana.
  - cel1ne 10y ago
    In 1996 Australia bought back more than a million firearms from people and destroyed them subsequently. Brazil did the same.
    - douche 10y ago
      Peanuts, in comparison. There are more than 300 million firearms in circulation in the U.S.
    - vacri 10y ago
      Australia was never a gun culture in the first place. Apart from security forces, civilian guns were things farmers used for stock control, or occasionally hunting. It used to be the same in the US as well, until the weekend warrior/home security people went berserk. The real problem in the US is the cultural trope that 'problems are solved by a man with a gun'. From domestic police to foreign policy, the US psyche approves of an armed response early. Until that's sorted (which is a generational problem, with no 'quick fix before the next election'), the US is going to keep having this issue, again and again.
      - soundwave106 10y ago
        Yes, unfortunately (and a bit ironically given current events, oddly enough) I feel that much of the whole current "2nd Amendment culture" is directly tied to the same sort of dynamics that have lead to the rise of Donald Trump here (and things like Brexit etc).
anu_gupta 10y ago
Citing Breitbart pretty much outs you. Looking at some of your other posts shows me that you are a dogwhistler who is careful to not say anything overtly racist.

Kristine1975 10y ago

Breitbart is as far away from facts as you can possibly get. "American Renaissance" with its "race realism" doesn't sound much more reliable.

JanezStupar 10y ago
All the articles cite official data. I would love to link Huffpo, Salon or Atlantic, but they are just to dishonest to publish something like this.
- chestervonwinch 10y ago
  The data is fine, but I'm asking sincerely - what is the point of the breitbart article? They present those statistics on black on black crime and lack of outrage thereof as evidence that the black lives matter movement and the left-leaning are taking advantage of white on black incidents to "advance their political power". Ok fine. This seems like an extremely cynical position to take, but going along with it, what is their implication? Advance their political power for what purpose? The subtext from the article (and more heavily from the comments) is that liberals want to take your guns, and black folks are violent people that kill each other anyway, so it's their own fault.
  - JanezStupar 10y ago
    Larry Elder frames it nicely in conservative terms: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piwaBO6U43U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piwaBO6U43U The implication is that liberals are engaging in soft bigotry of low expectations. That they are pandering to black voters for power. Another implication is that all the things that liberals are promising to the minorities that should be helping black people, such as welfare and affirmative action, end up causing more harm in the long run. Of course, I expect you to ask why? I would say one part lust for power, one part good intentions that pave road to hell and one part good old fashioned ignorance. And if you ask about motive? Just a power grab. In contemporary culture diversity is much relished. But not all of it, diversity of opinion is being shunned and anybody daring to show doubt is ostracized. If you take a long hard look - pretty much all the power structures on the west are very, very liberal/progressive (entertainment, media, school system, government and indeed politics). Since the consensus is that expanding government outreach and bringing more and more functions of society is a good thing and since the results are really not there - the liberals would either have to face their folly or instead keep doubling down. And since doubling down makes things worse - the liberals are becoming increasingly authoritarian, thus the vicious cycle is feeding itself. p.s.: In case you were asking what the motive of BLM is? I don't think they have one. Just as any other flavor of identity politics they are engaging in an us vs them discourse, which inevitably will cause them to turn on themselves. But liberals are going to squeeze as much out of them as possible.
    - chestervonwinch 10y ago
      Interesting video, thanks.
      - JanezStupar 10y ago
        You might also like this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNrHW1E8hRI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNrHW1E8hRI Thomas Sowell debating policies of the last 40 years, back in 1982, it is quite interesting to see how those have turned out pretty much as he predicted and indeed even the arguments of the proponents have gone in the exactly the same direction.

_98fj 10y ago

I don't know what assumptions you think are incorrect: that people are afraid of getting killed? What I said was that situations involving guns tend to scare/alarm all involved parties. And that getting rid of the guns is easier and will likely have a larger effect than curing people of their racism.

douche 10y ago
Getting rid of the guns is not a realistic option. The U.S. is too big, and too diverse for blanket intrusive policies to work well. A firearms policy that makes sense in Baltimore is complete overkill in Montana.
- cel1ne 10y ago
  In 1996 Australia bought back more than a million firearms from people and destroyed them subsequently. Brazil did the same.
  - douche 10y ago
    Peanuts, in comparison. There are more than 300 million firearms in circulation in the U.S.
  - vacri 10y ago
    Australia was never a gun culture in the first place. Apart from security forces, civilian guns were things farmers used for stock control, or occasionally hunting. It used to be the same in the US as well, until the weekend warrior/home security people went berserk. The real problem in the US is the cultural trope that 'problems are solved by a man with a gun'. From domestic police to foreign policy, the US psyche approves of an armed response early. Until that's sorted (which is a generational problem, with no 'quick fix before the next election'), the US is going to keep having this issue, again and again.
    - soundwave106 10y ago
      Yes, unfortunately (and a bit ironically given current events, oddly enough) I feel that much of the whole current "2nd Amendment culture" is directly tied to the same sort of dynamics that have lead to the rise of Donald Trump here (and things like Brexit etc).

anu_gupta 10y ago

Citing Breitbart pretty much outs you. Looking at some of your other posts shows me that you are a dogwhistler who is careful to not say anything overtly racist.