Good info on mass shootings discrepancies
- Thread starter hso
- Start date
- Status
stchman
Member
We can continue to throw logic and facts at the antis and they will still dismiss it in favor of their spewed lies.
MedWheeler
Member
Gun control is not about public safety, crime reduction, or "the children."
Gun control is about power. The people have it, and the government would rather they not.
That's the problem with debating the actual people who can implement it.
But information such as that provided can whittle away at support for such measures from those whose said support really is misguided.
Gun control is about power. The people have it, and the government would rather they not.
That's the problem with debating the actual people who can implement it.
But information such as that provided can whittle away at support for such measures from those whose said support really is misguided.
Jackal
Member
Police kill at least 5x more people every year than "mass shooters". You are at least 5x more likely to be shot by a cop than a nutjob with a gun.
MedWheeler
Member
^^ Based on the numbers alone, maybe.
But we know that's not at all true. An individual who keeps his nose clean, lives a rather mundane and honest lifestyle, and rarely, if ever, has any interaction with police, stands a far lower chance than does an inner-city-dweller who is unemployed, spends time on the streets skirting the law, and lives a higher-risk lifestyle.
For example, based on the lifestyle I live, I'm more likely to fall victim to a terrorist attack in a mall than I am to be targeted for execution by a LEO. This is because I spend more time in malls than I do drawing LE attention to myself. I get stopped by a LEO maybe once every 8-10 years. I'm pretty sure I'm in a mall or other populous place more often than that. I'm also pretty sure that over 95 percent of police-shooting recipients had been stopped, pursued, or arrested by a LEO within the previous 12 months, and were being stopped, detained, or pursued at the time of the shooting.
But we know that's not at all true. An individual who keeps his nose clean, lives a rather mundane and honest lifestyle, and rarely, if ever, has any interaction with police, stands a far lower chance than does an inner-city-dweller who is unemployed, spends time on the streets skirting the law, and lives a higher-risk lifestyle.
For example, based on the lifestyle I live, I'm more likely to fall victim to a terrorist attack in a mall than I am to be targeted for execution by a LEO. This is because I spend more time in malls than I do drawing LE attention to myself. I get stopped by a LEO maybe once every 8-10 years. I'm pretty sure I'm in a mall or other populous place more often than that. I'm also pretty sure that over 95 percent of police-shooting recipients had been stopped, pursued, or arrested by a LEO within the previous 12 months, and were being stopped, detained, or pursued at the time of the shooting.
Jackal
Member
Honestly though, gun violence as a whole is predominately a racial/gender issue. Using CDC statistics, roughly 7% of the population (black males) commit roughly 60% of gun homicides in America. We all hear about it on the news, but to actually see the numbers is staggering and honestly, scary. Handguns in the hands of thugs kill nearly 80x more people than "mass shooters", per year.
OP
OP
Jackal,
Got a link?
Got a link?
Jackal
Member
Yessir. Some very interesting data thats pretty much irrefutable. I personally dont go for the ___ in 100,000 statistics. I prefer the raw numbers that leave nothing to interpretation or twisting. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf
Rex B
Member
Two words from Kurt Schlichter:
http://opinion.ijr.com/2015/07/245635-g ... 8.facebook
He's right, as usual
http://opinion.ijr.com/2015/07/245635-g ... 8.facebook
He's right, as usual
Packman
Member
Jackal,
Interesting link. Any chance you can point me toward where in the link you shared you're pulling that statistic from? That's a lot of info to sort through.
Interesting link. Any chance you can point me toward where in the link you shared you're pulling that statistic from? That's a lot of info to sort through.
Jackal
Member
Page 52 pertains to guns by race. The entire chapter is interesting reading, but the racial gun stats are f'ing terrifying....
Packman
Member
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that chart indicating that black people are much more likely to be killed by a firearm, not necessarily commit a homicide with a firearm?
What I mean is, doesn't that chart just indicate deaths as a result of a cause, not necessarily who is doing the killing?
What I mean is, doesn't that chart just indicate deaths as a result of a cause, not necessarily who is doing the killing?
ljnowell
Member
Do you think it's the white man who goes into the ghetto and commits those murders?
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/28/5-devastating-facts-black-black-crime/
Follow this link and go to page 11. They list victimization and offending rates. The number you are looking for is the offending rate.
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf
Jackal
Member
Correct. Then we can compare those numbers to stats such as the FBI Expanded Homicide Data (better resources are available as well, I will locate then when I have more time ) https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_6_murder_race_and_sex_of_vicitm_by_race_and_sex_of_offender_2013.xls Combined, what we get is a pretty clear picture of who is committing the murder and who is being murdered.
Unfortunately, there is no one-stop-shop or free lunch when it comes to statistics. The best we can to is piece together data from multiple agencies to provide ourselves with the truth. If "they" wanted us to know the truth, they would make it easier to find....
Last edited:
JTHunter
Member
MedWheeler said:
And it always has been that way.
Most of us have seen one or the other of the "Red Dawn" movies.
How many of you felt that the "invading military force" might end up being our own government?
And it always has been that way.
Most of us have seen one or the other of the "Red Dawn" movies.
How many of you felt that the "invading military force" might end up being our own government?
grog18b
Member
The largest mass shooting of men, women, and children in the US happened...
...at Wounded Knee. 250-300 killed.
Who did it?
The US Government.
Yeah, we NEED more gun control...
...at Wounded Knee. 250-300 killed.
Who did it?
The US Government.
Yeah, we NEED more gun control...
IMO, Bloomberg is the epitome of unchecked power that never faces accountability for his claims & actions. Statistics are easy to abuse, and Bloomberg is one of the best here. All you need is a researcher willing to data mine a gigantic data set for correlations (or join multiple data sets with conflicting information and draw from two indirectly conflicting variables) that "prove" whatever point they or their funders wanted to "prove" from the start, a long-winded but indirectly justifiable methodology, some good data visualization software, a professionally written "results" and "discussion" section, and access to publishing resources & other media outlets.
Bloomberg owns all of this, and has extensive access to publishing networks that many Readers consider to be relatively neutral sources for factual information. He has the power to purchase his own "research," draw "new findings" from existing research, and can discourage or block the publication of conflicting studies through intimidation and coercion. It scares me to think how hard it is to counter his agenda.
Bloomberg owns all of this, and has extensive access to publishing networks that many Readers consider to be relatively neutral sources for factual information. He has the power to purchase his own "research," draw "new findings" from existing research, and can discourage or block the publication of conflicting studies through intimidation and coercion. It scares me to think how hard it is to counter his agenda.
Paleocon
Member
We need to counter the antis with concise graphics. People believe pictures more than they do words, perhaps because looking at a picture is easier than reading.
For example, this graphic proves a related point made by Jackal in #7 above, at least for Chicago in 2009:
For Jackal's purpose one can simplify this to include only the first and last pie charts to show that 32% of Chicago's residents are Black, but that Blacks commit 75% of the murders. All you need to do is post those two pie charts into a discussion, early and often, and let the Chicago Police Department's numbers do the talking.
Reading the stats it becomes very clear that shooting someone or being shot often causes people to be African American.
(And if that seems stupid, consider whether being African American is a logical cause of violence.)
(And if that seems stupid, consider whether being African American is a logical cause of violence.)
https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=5137
Last edited:
Paleocon
Member
Packman,
I searched "chicago color of crime" and the first thing that popped up was:
http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2011/06/15/the-color-of-crime-chicago/
There is no more detail, but there is a link to the Chicago Police Department's 2009 Annual Report. Unfortunately, the link is inactive. One might be able to find the report or a subsequent one on the City of Chicago website:
https://www.cityofchicago.org/city/en/depts/cpd.html
American Renaissance has published a national version of the CPD's report in 1999, 2005, and 2016, that is based on FBI statistics:
http://www.amren.com/the-color-of-crime/
It's worth the read.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
All of these clear headed discussions of race and homicide and the inner city are interesting and potentially useful. However, they're a total dead-end if they become, as someone's sig around here says, "a convenient place to stop thinking."
Reading this discussion through to post 22 a disinterested observer would almost inevitably come to the conclusion, "Oh, there's no need to take legislative action about mass shooters. What we really need to do is take action against black men, especially not letting them have guns."
And that, right there, is NOT a viable destination for our train of thought. First, of course, it would make us sound like the racists our enemies always claim we are. Second, it isn't in any way actionable. The law cannot and should not allow a person to be denied the right to keep and bear arms because of what color their skin happens to be, or where they live. And many of the people such laws would disarm are those who live in far greater danger than any of us here at THR. We WANT them to have guns. We want them to be able to protect themselves, in their home and on their streets. It's a big part of our raison d'etre. And if they do it will feed right into some of the statistics for homicide in urban, black, poor populations.
So there's a practical problem with pointing at these statistics and claiming, "Hey, look, HERE'S where the REAL problem is, over here!"
And the corollary element of that phenomenon is that it really doesn't stop our enemies, or even all the fence-sitters out in armchair land, from trying to ban guns. If we point out that there's a problem with a lot of people getting shot in the inner city, these folks will certainly understand that you can't apply laws inconsistently upon people of different races, classes, or addresses, and so they'll return to the same old tack: Reducing the number of people shot is good, and taking away guns will take away the means of people being shot. We can't take away guns from just these people, but if we take away guns from everybody, homicides by gun will drop.
So? How do we take this analysis of homicide as a race issue and use it as an EFFECTIVE deflection against anti-gun efforts? How do we keep it from simply being a tidy way to end a thread or discussion where we can pat ourselves on the back and say, "see, it isn't US, and it isn't our guns that are the problem!"? How does this become useful?
Reading this discussion through to post 22 a disinterested observer would almost inevitably come to the conclusion, "Oh, there's no need to take legislative action about mass shooters. What we really need to do is take action against black men, especially not letting them have guns."
And that, right there, is NOT a viable destination for our train of thought. First, of course, it would make us sound like the racists our enemies always claim we are. Second, it isn't in any way actionable. The law cannot and should not allow a person to be denied the right to keep and bear arms because of what color their skin happens to be, or where they live. And many of the people such laws would disarm are those who live in far greater danger than any of us here at THR. We WANT them to have guns. We want them to be able to protect themselves, in their home and on their streets. It's a big part of our raison d'etre. And if they do it will feed right into some of the statistics for homicide in urban, black, poor populations.
So there's a practical problem with pointing at these statistics and claiming, "Hey, look, HERE'S where the REAL problem is, over here!"
And the corollary element of that phenomenon is that it really doesn't stop our enemies, or even all the fence-sitters out in armchair land, from trying to ban guns. If we point out that there's a problem with a lot of people getting shot in the inner city, these folks will certainly understand that you can't apply laws inconsistently upon people of different races, classes, or addresses, and so they'll return to the same old tack: Reducing the number of people shot is good, and taking away guns will take away the means of people being shot. We can't take away guns from just these people, but if we take away guns from everybody, homicides by gun will drop.
So? How do we take this analysis of homicide as a race issue and use it as an EFFECTIVE deflection against anti-gun efforts? How do we keep it from simply being a tidy way to end a thread or discussion where we can pat ourselves on the back and say, "see, it isn't US, and it isn't our guns that are the problem!"? How does this become useful?
You do it by including other mechanisms of homicide. If you look at stabbings you get the same numbers.
It was like that in South Africa and it is like that in the UK too.
The problem lies squarely with these communities producing adult males with a reduced sense of individual responsibility, not enough subscription to the family as a unit, and a tendency towards a pack/gang mentality which is more at home to the marauding hyenas in Africa.
It was like that in South Africa and it is like that in the UK too.
The problem lies squarely with these communities producing adult males with a reduced sense of individual responsibility, not enough subscription to the family as a unit, and a tendency towards a pack/gang mentality which is more at home to the marauding hyenas in Africa.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
I don't disagree with what you're saying, at all, and I'm certain that if you add in everything from stabbings, to beatings, to stranglings with dental floss, that community probably holds pride of place.
But how, in our world and specifically the USA trying so hard to be "post-racial" or at least sort of color-blind, how do we use data that says "young, poor, urban, black men commit the majority of our violent crimes" as a tool to undo or deflect gun control measures?
But how, in our world and specifically the USA trying so hard to be "post-racial" or at least sort of color-blind, how do we use data that says "young, poor, urban, black men commit the majority of our violent crimes" as a tool to undo or deflect gun control measures?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
