Gun Lobbyist Says Child Shooting Death Stats Would Be Lower 'If You Remove Black Males'

[LakeTrout]

So the numbers only work if you include adults in that statistic. Interesting. That is on top of being incredibly misleading to begin with. When every panicking soccer mom or beta male in the country hears this, they're thinking children are being accidentally shot. They don't realize that gang violence is a huge portion of those deaths. So, murder is a leading cause of death in children to be fair.

 

[EMTDAD]

unfriend

this... I'm no longer on FB, but why would you invite a co-worker that you refer to as a "colleague" and not a "friend" into your life on FB (that I assume is set to private)?

when I was on FB, I had only 2 co-workers that were legit friends into my FB life. They were well vetted after knowing them for like 6 or 7 yrs working with them, and sharing personal details. I still call them "friends" and not "former coworkers".

I actually had one liberal/moonbat coworker ask me to connect on FB. I told her point blank that that would not be a good idea.

 

[StevieP]

Its not even an eighth of the population. That demographic includes men and women. If you look at just men, who make up the overwhelming majority of violent crime committed in that demographic, its roughly 7% of the population, and that 7% is responsible for almost 60% of all violent crime in the US but hey, statistics are racist. But its not their fault, given that they’ve been marginalized and are all victims of systemic racism. They had no other choice but become violent criminal a**h***s. /s

That 7% includes ALL black males. The percentage of them who are 15 - 19 year olds (which comprise MOST of these violent criminals) is pretty small. Lets call it one or two percent who commit over half of all the violent crime.

 

[RKG]

If I were smarter, I’d pass on responding to this thread. There’s two reasons for that.

First, I have no expertise in the field. I have no hard evidence proving what I’m about to opine, and I’ve been exposed to no “science” on the topic, either. Thus, for ought that I can prove, the opinion I’m about to express comes either from outer space or maybe some dark orifice.

Second, in part for the foregoing reasons and maybe some others, I can think of no reason why anyone would or should give a hoot about what I think.

So, against my better judgment, here goes:

No. 1: I am firmly of the opinion that there is nothing in Negro genes, Negro blood, or Negro ethnic construct that makes blacks more prone to violence than any other tribe’s genes, blood or ethnic.

No. 2: I am equally firmly of the opinion that if you get enough “activists,” politicians, and others to preach often enough to a particular social group that members of that group have been mistreated, abused, disrespected, or whatever, and to preach to them that it is their right to engage in rioting, burning things, and other forms of “protest,” you can and will generate a visible uptick in violence.

Thus I am of the unprovable opinion that what we have seen relatively recently is manufactured. What are the motivations of those inducing all of this? I suspect a mix of dementia, personal financial gain, and inducement and support by foreign groups who think destabilization of the Unite States might be helpful to them.

Further you affiant sayeth naught.

 

[rogersmithiii]

I'm referencing a point way before that. The earliest gun control measures (the earliest being in the VA House of Commons) we know of occurred in 1640 and specifically targeting blacks. This intensified after the conclusion of the Civil War, because many in government viewed blacks as having firearms as dangerous. Then, you had your Saturday Night Special bans of the South (1870-1907) which put firearm ownership out of the hands of all minority groups and the poor, but specifically targeted blacks. This was the foundation of the "roster" laws in effect in some states. In 1911, New York gave police the sole power to grant gun permits. Again, anyone that wasn't a white male effectively got denied on the basis of them not being white and male.

Modern gun control - the past 50 years or so- actually originated under Ronald Reagan (in my opinion). As governor of CA, he signed into law the Mulford Act of 1967. The purpose was to break the Black Panther Party because they open carried and had a few incidents with police where it's debatable if the police started the incident or not. The Mulford Act was fully supported by the NRA.

The whole system of permitting is rotten, as are "suitability standards," which has always given police any reason to deny anyone for a permit. For 70+ years, that meant if you looked or acted differently than what the permitting officer wanted, you weren't getting a permit. I don't think it's as much to do with Jim Crow as it is politicians, no matter who is in power, want to be able to control everything, everyone, and everywhere. Has any Republican President actually expanded firearm rights recently? Has a Republican led Congress done more than give lip service? The 1994 AWB passed the Senate 95-4. 38 Republicans voted in the affirmative. Few and far between are genuine 2A supporters in government.

Jim Crow and gun control were brilliant ideas.

They just applied them to the wrong people. Apply them to progressives, socialists and Marxists, and it would be heaven!!

I mean, who wants to sit next to a tofu farter in a movie theater?

 

[RKG]

Jim Crow and gun control were brilliant ideas.

They just applied them to the wrong people. Apply them to progressives, socialists and Marxists, and it would be heaven!!

I mean, who wants to sit next to a tofu farter in a movie theater?

Does that mean it would be OK to sit next to a Texas Barbeque farter?

 

[rogersmithiii]

That 7% includes ALL black males. The percentage of them who are 15 - 19 year olds (which comprise MOST of these violent criminals) is pretty small. Lets call it one or two percent who commit over half of all the violent crime.

If you are a drug dealer, you can't call the police if someone rips you off. You can't take people to court to negotiate differences.

The only thing you can do is threaten violence, so your reputation is everything.

Shootings, beatings, and attacks are the way you earn a reputation, so that no one messes with you.

Violence is a tool.

 

[Keeper]

Wouldn't associated death statistics be lower anytime you remove a subset of the population?

Per capita? (Which is what is being discussed here.) If the rates were equal among demographics they wouldn't change.

Absolutely. If you removed white males the numbers would go down as well. Just basic math. Nothing to see here.

No, they would go up. Basic math.

For Example	Count	Population	Per 100k
Population A	20​	500000​	4​
Population B	6​	35000​	17​
Total	26​	535000​	5​

The data from the article:

 

[MaverickNH]

this... I'm no longer on FB, but why would you invite a co-worker that you refer to as a "colleague" and not a "friend" into your life on FB (that I assume is set to private)?

This guy was an engineer in a start-up I joined 2003 - we were a very social start-up and got together for years after it went under. I never knew his Progressive Left leanings until he was triggered by Trump in 2016. I keep in touch with a few former colleagues and remain friends with a few on the Progressive Left. Last week, on a trip to Quebec City with two old friends, I had them take Pew’s Political Typology Quiz . They were surprised to see they’d moved toward the center, as the Left had drifted further Left.

I’m a scientist myself, so like to “experiment” with people outside my bubble. So I expose myself to those with different beliefs and opinions. It’s actually easier to deal with people in person than anonymously via social media, except for shrieking, hand-wringing moonbats.

Very quantitative people can be the blindest to data that disagrees with their belief. Kahan’s “Motivated Numeracy” asks people with low to high levels of numeracy (intuitive math smarts) to look at data on gun control and crime - those with average numeracy interpret the data correctly but those with high numeracy misinterpret the data in favor of their bias for or against gun control. Those with low numeracy misinterpret the data but less so than those with high numeracy.

That’s this guy on FB - a great engineer who is so blinded by his anti-gun beliefs that he sees the drop in homicides post-COVID as proof that only newly acquired guns during COVID caused the increase in homicides during COVID. He thinks people legally acquired 2.5 million more guns via NICS during COVID, killed people, then those guns ceased to be evil. You gotta be fascinated by such a mind - that’s successfully designing multi-million dollar medical equipment.

No. 1: I am firmly of the opinion that there is nothing in Negro genes, Negro blood, or Negro ethnic construct that makes blacks more prone to violence than any other tribe’s genes, blood or ethnic.

Yeah - Nobel Prize winner Francis Crick (co-discoverer of DNA structure) was censured by the scientific community a few years back for his public views on race and DNA. But now, the Anti-racists all talk about cross-generation inheritance of racial trauma through epigenetic DNA transmission . It’s true, that severe malnutrition and harsh physical/mental stress changes DNA in sperm and/or eggs - not the DNA coding itself, but add-on bits (methylation & acetylation) that changes how the DNA coding is read into structural and metabolic systems. Probably true for 1-2 generations, but it’s utter BS to say Blacks bear DNA scars of “Implicit Repression” from Slavery and thus are “reversibly programmed” to lower literacy potential, higher crime potential, lower traditional family structure potential, etc. Supposedly, this “reversible programming” can be “healed” by Reparations, complete restructuring of government, industry and social to eliminate structural/institutional White Supremacy, etc. They’ve way overreached the science to justify an agenda.

 

[dragonballzz]

That's how math works. Remove something and now you have less.