Blacks are more often criminal is just a myth. Whites account for most violent crimes by over 2:1

[ClosedCaption]

why do whites commit so much crime? They have too because numbers?

Present the percentages per group or your simply trolling

Why? I'm not asking about percentages I want to know why do you have an excuse for white crimes as if it has to happen?

There is no excuse and nobody is claiming there is but you,the simple fact that the OP punked his own ass,this is simple 4th grade math,
Crime is crime no matter what color you are,but as said OP tried and claim whites commit more crime because of whiteness,when the numbers prove the opposite.Per capita,and that's what must be looked at for the TRUTH proportionality blacks commit more crimes,fact are hard sometimes.

I ask why and you quote me without an answer?

 

[Correll]

This is literally the first time I have run into a lib claiming the FBI stats are no good.

No one is making that claim!

Read and learn!

Sources of Crime Data Uniform Crime Reports and the National Incident-Based Reporting System National Institute of Justice

Sources of Crime Data: Uniform Crime Reports and the National Incident-Based Reporting System
Two major sources of crime statistics commonly used in the United States are the Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) and the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS).

Uniform Crime Reports
The UCR is the FBI’s widely used system for recording crimes and making policy decisions. It has tracked data on seven crimes since 1930: murder, robbery, rape, aggravated assault, burglary, theft and vehicle theft. In 1979, the UCR started reporting on arson. Nearly 17,000 law enforcement agencies report UCR data to the FBI but those data have several limitations that make them unsuitable for analyzing local crime.

National Incident-Based Reporting System
Crime data from NIBRS (as of 2004) come from 5,271 law enforcement agencies that represent about 20 percent of the total U.S. population. NIBRS is the result of the FBI's efforts in the 1980s to revise the UCR.

Dude. YOu said they were meaningless.

NOw you claiming that that does not mean "no good"?

SO, they are meaningless but good?

Percentages are meaningless if they are based upon incomplete data.

Try enrolling in adult remedial reading and math classes at your local community college.

But then you deny that you are saying they are no good.

Let me repeat my advice....try enrolling in adult remedial reading and math classes at your local community college.

Allow me to take this opportunity to congratulate you on a fine avatar choice. Clown is perfect for you.

 

[chikenwing]

White people like to use the excuse of "percentages".

They claim that they are the majority in America and it only makes sense there are more crimes by them.

Except they never say why? They say blacks who commit crimes are bad people, no home training etc etc. But whites lead in all categories just because its more of them.

Which doesnt answer the question at all about why whites are the leader in all violence. Is it an upbringing thing? Do whites just have to commit crimes just because?

Except they never say why? LOL
You don't like math ether do you WTF are all of you clowns really that dense or ya just gotta have an argument regardless??

Aww, there was your chance to say why and you missed it

Didn't miss a thing,you posted the answer yourself there bright spot.

 

[Derideo_Te]

No one is making that claim!

Read and learn!

Sources of Crime Data Uniform Crime Reports and the National Incident-Based Reporting System National Institute of Justice

Sources of Crime Data: Uniform Crime Reports and the National Incident-Based Reporting System
Two major sources of crime statistics commonly used in the United States are the Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) and the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS).

Uniform Crime Reports
The UCR is the FBI’s widely used system for recording crimes and making policy decisions. It has tracked data on seven crimes since 1930: murder, robbery, rape, aggravated assault, burglary, theft and vehicle theft. In 1979, the UCR started reporting on arson. Nearly 17,000 law enforcement agencies report UCR data to the FBI but those data have several limitations that make them unsuitable for analyzing local crime.

National Incident-Based Reporting System
Crime data from NIBRS (as of 2004) come from 5,271 law enforcement agencies that represent about 20 percent of the total U.S. population. NIBRS is the result of the FBI's efforts in the 1980s to revise the UCR.

Dude. YOu said they were meaningless.

NOw you claiming that that does not mean "no good"?

SO, they are meaningless but good?

Percentages are meaningless if they are based upon incomplete data.

Try enrolling in adult remedial reading and math classes at your local community college.

But then you deny that you are saying they are no good.

Let me repeat my advice....try enrolling in adult remedial reading and math classes at your local community college.

Allow me to take this opportunity to congratulate you on a fine avatar choice. Clown is perfect for you.

Your inability to learn from your mistakes is your problem.

 

[Meathead]

From the table, whites are twice as rapey as blacks, more than twice as likely to steal from you or burgle your home or business, almost twice as likely to assault you, twice as likely to steal your car, three times as likely to commit arson, etc etc.

From these facts what we can conclude is whites are 2-3 times as likely to be criminal than blacks.

Is there a problem with gay Jews and math? I knew that Stats was innumerate, but now we've got a second.

 

[Correll]

Dude. YOu said they were meaningless.

NOw you claiming that that does not mean "no good"?

SO, they are meaningless but good?

Percentages are meaningless if they are based upon incomplete data.

Try enrolling in adult remedial reading and math classes at your local community college.

But then you deny that you are saying they are no good.

Let me repeat my advice....try enrolling in adult remedial reading and math classes at your local community college.

Allow me to take this opportunity to congratulate you on a fine avatar choice. Clown is perfect for you.

Your inability to learn from your mistakes is your problem.

I'm good. YOu want to dismiss FBI stats, but you don't want to admit that you want to dismiss FBI stats because you fear that would make you look like ridiculous.

SO, you dismiss them.

If anyone uses them you attack the FBI stats.

But is someone asks you about your dismissal of the stats, you deny that you dismissed them.

A new twist, I admit, but fairly standard lib intellectual dishonesty.

I just wish I knew if you really believe your crap.

 

[Pop23]

Dude. YOu said they were meaningless.

NOw you claiming that that does not mean "no good"?

SO, they are meaningless but good?

Percentages are meaningless if they are based upon incomplete data.

Try enrolling in adult remedial reading and math classes at your local community college.

But then you deny that you are saying they are no good.

Let me repeat my advice....try enrolling in adult remedial reading and math classes at your local community college.

Allow me to take this opportunity to congratulate you on a fine avatar choice. Clown is perfect for you.

Your inability to learn from your mistakes is your problem.

You realize the OP based his post on a ratio, right?

2:1

Got it?

Without the raw numbers it means nothing.

When are you going to tell him to stfu?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Percentages are meaningless if they are based upon incomplete data.

Try enrolling in adult remedial reading and math classes at your local community college.

But then you deny that you are saying they are no good.

Let me repeat my advice....try enrolling in adult remedial reading and math classes at your local community college.

Allow me to take this opportunity to congratulate you on a fine avatar choice. Clown is perfect for you.

Your inability to learn from your mistakes is your problem.

I'm good. YOu want to dismiss FBI stats, but you don't want to admit that you want to dismiss FBI stats because you fear that would make you look like ridiculous.

SO, you dismiss them.

If anyone uses them you attack the FBI stats.

But is someone asks you about your dismissal of the stats, you deny that you dismissed them.

A new twist, I admit, but fairly standard lib intellectual dishonesty.

I just wish I knew if you really believe your crap.

Your lies are your problem.

The FBI only collects data from about 60% of all of the Law Enforcement Agencies nationwide.

Therefore their data is incomplete.

If you try and extrapolate their incomplete data and use it calculate percentages based upon the demographics of the entire US population you are going to come up with garbage.

That is YOUR problem since you obviously don't have a clue about math.

Now run along and ask someone to help you enroll in adult remedial education classes at your local community college.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Percentages are meaningless if they are based upon incomplete data.

Try enrolling in adult remedial reading and math classes at your local community college.

But then you deny that you are saying they are no good.

Let me repeat my advice....try enrolling in adult remedial reading and math classes at your local community college.

Allow me to take this opportunity to congratulate you on a fine avatar choice. Clown is perfect for you.

Your inability to learn from your mistakes is your problem.

You realize the OP based his post on a ratio, right?

2:1

Got it?

Without the raw numbers it means nothing.

When are you going to tell him to stfu?

The OP was using the same source data to obtain that ratio.

You were disingenuously trying to calculate a percentage using a different source.

So you should take your own advice.

 

[Correll]

But then you deny that you are saying they are no good.

Let me repeat my advice....try enrolling in adult remedial reading and math classes at your local community college.

Allow me to take this opportunity to congratulate you on a fine avatar choice. Clown is perfect for you.

Your inability to learn from your mistakes is your problem.

I'm good. YOu want to dismiss FBI stats, but you don't want to admit that you want to dismiss FBI stats because you fear that would make you look like ridiculous.

SO, you dismiss them.

If anyone uses them you attack the FBI stats.

But is someone asks you about your dismissal of the stats, you deny that you dismissed them.

A new twist, I admit, but fairly standard lib intellectual dishonesty.

I just wish I knew if you really believe your crap.

Your lies are your problem.

The FBI only collects data from about 60% of all of the Law Enforcement Agencies nationwide.

Therefore their data is incomplete.

If you try and extrapolate their incomplete data and use it calculate percentages based upon the demographics of the entire US population you are going to come up with garbage.

That is YOUR problem since you obviously don't have a clue about math.

Now run along and ask someone to help you enroll in adult remedial education classes at your local community college.

Mmm, if you were really so confident in your argument, you wouldn't rely so heavily on Appeal to Ridicule.


COuld you explain why you did not attack the OP for using FBI stats?

 

[Pop23]

But then you deny that you are saying they are no good.

Let me repeat my advice....try enrolling in adult remedial reading and math classes at your local community college.

Allow me to take this opportunity to congratulate you on a fine avatar choice. Clown is perfect for you.

Your inability to learn from your mistakes is your problem.

You realize the OP based his post on a ratio, right?

2:1

Got it?

Without the raw numbers it means nothing.

When are you going to tell him to stfu?

The OP was using the same source data to obtain that ratio.

You were disingenuously trying to calculate a percentage using a different source.

So you should take your own advice.

How is asking for the raw numbers using a different source?

Good god, you are lame

 

[WelfareQueen]

It is obvious the OP is retarded and cannot read or comprehend basic math. Per his data set that he posted.


Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter: White: 4,101 Black: 4,203.

So, blacks are 12.5% of the U.S. Population and commit more murders than whites who are 66% of the population. ******* moron.

Robbery: White: 34,761 Black: 44,002

I could go on...but you get the idea. The OP is either a ******* moron or a liar. Per FBI data blacks are roughly 3X more likely to commit a violent crime in America than whites per capita. That data has held true for decades.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Let me repeat my advice....try enrolling in adult remedial reading and math classes at your local community college.

Allow me to take this opportunity to congratulate you on a fine avatar choice. Clown is perfect for you.

Your inability to learn from your mistakes is your problem.

You realize the OP based his post on a ratio, right?

2:1

Got it?

Without the raw numbers it means nothing.

When are you going to tell him to stfu?

The OP was using the same source data to obtain that ratio.

You were disingenuously trying to calculate a percentage using a different source.

So you should take your own advice.

How is asking for the raw numbers using a different source?

Good god, you are lame

Ironic!

 

[WelfareQueen]

I also find in humorous to suggest the FBI data is somehow slanted to make blacks look bad.

Keep in mind the FBI is part of the Justice Dept which was headed by a black man, Eric Holder when this data was released. The data is further under the control of the Executive Branch as DOJ ultimately reports up to Obama.

So...the left wing nutter conspiracy theory is the FBI data is false or incomplete....and two black men...Holder and Obama are releasing data designed to make blacks look bad.

I love the left wing loons. Really I do.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Let me repeat my advice....try enrolling in adult remedial reading and math classes at your local community college.

Allow me to take this opportunity to congratulate you on a fine avatar choice. Clown is perfect for you.

Your inability to learn from your mistakes is your problem.

I'm good. YOu want to dismiss FBI stats, but you don't want to admit that you want to dismiss FBI stats because you fear that would make you look like ridiculous.

SO, you dismiss them.

If anyone uses them you attack the FBI stats.

But is someone asks you about your dismissal of the stats, you deny that you dismissed them.

A new twist, I admit, but fairly standard lib intellectual dishonesty.

I just wish I knew if you really believe your crap.

Your lies are your problem.

The FBI only collects data from about 60% of all of the Law Enforcement Agencies nationwide.

Therefore their data is incomplete.

If you try and extrapolate their incomplete data and use it calculate percentages based upon the demographics of the entire US population you are going to come up with garbage.

That is YOUR problem since you obviously don't have a clue about math.

Now run along and ask someone to help you enroll in adult remedial education classes at your local community college.

Mmm, if you were really so confident in your argument, you wouldn't rely so heavily on Appeal to Ridicule.


COuld you explain why you did not attack the OP for using FBI stats?

I already explained it once but for the dull witted I will type this slowly.

The FBI only obtains data from about 60% of all law enforcement agencies nationally.

Comparing the FBI data to Census data is invalid because Census data is based upon 100% of the population.

Comparing FBI data to FBI data is valid because it is the same 60% source.

Therefore the 2:1 ratio is based upon the same 60% subset. Mathematically it is a valid result because the base is the same for both sides of the ratio.

But to compare the FBI data to Census data is invalid because the FBI base is 60% whereas the Census base is 100% therefore the math won't yield a valid percentage.

Please make your $500 payment to my Paypal account for this lesson in basic mathematics.

 

[Correll]

Allow me to take this opportunity to congratulate you on a fine avatar choice. Clown is perfect for you.

Your inability to learn from your mistakes is your problem.

I'm good. YOu want to dismiss FBI stats, but you don't want to admit that you want to dismiss FBI stats because you fear that would make you look like ridiculous.

SO, you dismiss them.

If anyone uses them you attack the FBI stats.

But is someone asks you about your dismissal of the stats, you deny that you dismissed them.

A new twist, I admit, but fairly standard lib intellectual dishonesty.

I just wish I knew if you really believe your crap.

Your lies are your problem.

The FBI only collects data from about 60% of all of the Law Enforcement Agencies nationwide.

Therefore their data is incomplete.

If you try and extrapolate their incomplete data and use it calculate percentages based upon the demographics of the entire US population you are going to come up with garbage.

That is YOUR problem since you obviously don't have a clue about math.

Now run along and ask someone to help you enroll in adult remedial education classes at your local community college.

Mmm, if you were really so confident in your argument, you wouldn't rely so heavily on Appeal to Ridicule.


COuld you explain why you did not attack the OP for using FBI stats?

I already explained it once but for the dull witted I will type this slowly.

The FBI only obtains data from about 60% of all law enforcement agencies nationally.

Comparing the FBI data to Census data is invalid because Census data is based upon 100% of the population.

Comparing FBI data to FBI data is valid because it is the same 60% source.

Therefore the 2:1 ratio is based upon the same 60% subset. Mathematically it is a valid result because the base is the same for both sides of the ratio.

But to compare the FBI data to Census data is invalid because the FBI base is 60% whereas the Census base is 100% therefore the math won't yield a valid percentage.

Please make your $500 payment to my Paypal account for this lesson in basic mathematics.

If that 60% is not a representative sample than representing it as valid for "whites" and "blacks" is invalid.

And yet you have no problem with that.

But if the sample IS representative then comparing it to the rest of the nation, as I did IS valid.

Your attempt to insult my intelligence when your argument is, well what it is, really does not reflect well on you.

Like I said. GREAT AVATAR!

 

[Derideo_Te]

Your inability to learn from your mistakes is your problem.

I'm good. YOu want to dismiss FBI stats, but you don't want to admit that you want to dismiss FBI stats because you fear that would make you look like ridiculous.

SO, you dismiss them.

If anyone uses them you attack the FBI stats.

But is someone asks you about your dismissal of the stats, you deny that you dismissed them.

A new twist, I admit, but fairly standard lib intellectual dishonesty.

I just wish I knew if you really believe your crap.

Your lies are your problem.

The FBI only collects data from about 60% of all of the Law Enforcement Agencies nationwide.

Therefore their data is incomplete.

If you try and extrapolate their incomplete data and use it calculate percentages based upon the demographics of the entire US population you are going to come up with garbage.

That is YOUR problem since you obviously don't have a clue about math.

Now run along and ask someone to help you enroll in adult remedial education classes at your local community college.

Mmm, if you were really so confident in your argument, you wouldn't rely so heavily on Appeal to Ridicule.


COuld you explain why you did not attack the OP for using FBI stats?

I already explained it once but for the dull witted I will type this slowly.

The FBI only obtains data from about 60% of all law enforcement agencies nationally.

Comparing the FBI data to Census data is invalid because Census data is based upon 100% of the population.

Comparing FBI data to FBI data is valid because it is the same 60% source.

Therefore the 2:1 ratio is based upon the same 60% subset. Mathematically it is a valid result because the base is the same for both sides of the ratio.

But to compare the FBI data to Census data is invalid because the FBI base is 60% whereas the Census base is 100% therefore the math won't yield a valid percentage.

Please make your $500 payment to my Paypal account for this lesson in basic mathematics.

If that 60% is not a representative sample than representing it as valid for "whites" and "blacks" is invalid.

And yet you have no problem with that.

But if the sample IS representative then comparing it to the rest of the nation, as I did IS valid.

Your attempt to insult my intelligence when your argument is, well what it is, really does not reflect well on you.

Like I said. GREAT AVATAR!

Congratulations, it looks like you actually managed to learn something today.

Yes, the FBI 60% data set is probably not an accurate representative sample of crime nationwide.

However the mathematical ratio derived from that sample was correct.

Now you can argue that the OP made an assumption based upon incomplete data but you cannot argue that his math was wrong, because it wasn't.

On the other hand you and Pops both were intent upon making mathematical errors because you didn't understand the flaws in using different source data.

So in that respect your math was wrong whereas the OP's math was correct.

Now where is that $500 Paypal deposit?

 

[Pop23]

Allow me to take this opportunity to congratulate you on a fine avatar choice. Clown is perfect for you.

Your inability to learn from your mistakes is your problem.

I'm good. YOu want to dismiss FBI stats, but you don't want to admit that you want to dismiss FBI stats because you fear that would make you look like ridiculous.

SO, you dismiss them.

If anyone uses them you attack the FBI stats.

But is someone asks you about your dismissal of the stats, you deny that you dismissed them.

A new twist, I admit, but fairly standard lib intellectual dishonesty.

I just wish I knew if you really believe your crap.

Your lies are your problem.

The FBI only collects data from about 60% of all of the Law Enforcement Agencies nationwide.

Therefore their data is incomplete.

If you try and extrapolate their incomplete data and use it calculate percentages based upon the demographics of the entire US population you are going to come up with garbage.

That is YOUR problem since you obviously don't have a clue about math.

Now run along and ask someone to help you enroll in adult remedial education classes at your local community college.

Mmm, if you were really so confident in your argument, you wouldn't rely so heavily on Appeal to Ridicule.


COuld you explain why you did not attack the OP for using FBI stats?

I already explained it once but for the dull witted I will type this slowly.

The FBI only obtains data from about 60% of all law enforcement agencies nationally.

Comparing the FBI data to Census data is invalid because Census data is based upon 100% of the population.

Comparing FBI data to FBI data is valid because it is the same 60% source.

Therefore the 2:1 ratio is based upon the same 60% subset. Mathematically it is a valid result because the base is the same for both sides of the ratio.

But to compare the FBI data to Census data is invalid because the FBI base is 60% whereas the Census base is 100% therefore the math won't yield a valid percentage.

Please make your $500 payment to my Paypal account for this lesson in basic mathematics.

Good god, try to comprehend, K

If the only data you have is incomplete, but you try to extrapolate a 2:1 ratio, then your using IT to claim a truth.

I never did that, the OP did.

If the OP wants to use an incomplete dats set (which it appears he ran from), then it is legitimate to ask for the raw numbers.

Again, when are you going to tell the OP that his data sucks and he should shut the f@$k up?

 

[NLT]

FBI Table 43

"TOTAL 9,390,473 (whites)6,502,919 (blacks)2,640,067"

Suck it.

Hey cookie boy, ever hear of ratios. Dumbass

 

[WelfareQueen]

I'm good. YOu want to dismiss FBI stats, but you don't want to admit that you want to dismiss FBI stats because you fear that would make you look like ridiculous.

SO, you dismiss them.

If anyone uses them you attack the FBI stats.

But is someone asks you about your dismissal of the stats, you deny that you dismissed them.

A new twist, I admit, but fairly standard lib intellectual dishonesty.

I just wish I knew if you really believe your crap.

Your lies are your problem.

The FBI only collects data from about 60% of all of the Law Enforcement Agencies nationwide.

Therefore their data is incomplete.

If you try and extrapolate their incomplete data and use it calculate percentages based upon the demographics of the entire US population you are going to come up with garbage.

That is YOUR problem since you obviously don't have a clue about math.

Now run along and ask someone to help you enroll in adult remedial education classes at your local community college.

Mmm, if you were really so confident in your argument, you wouldn't rely so heavily on Appeal to Ridicule.


COuld you explain why you did not attack the OP for using FBI stats?

I already explained it once but for the dull witted I will type this slowly.

The FBI only obtains data from about 60% of all law enforcement agencies nationally.

Comparing the FBI data to Census data is invalid because Census data is based upon 100% of the population.

Comparing FBI data to FBI data is valid because it is the same 60% source.

Therefore the 2:1 ratio is based upon the same 60% subset. Mathematically it is a valid result because the base is the same for both sides of the ratio.

But to compare the FBI data to Census data is invalid because the FBI base is 60% whereas the Census base is 100% therefore the math won't yield a valid percentage.

Please make your $500 payment to my Paypal account for this lesson in basic mathematics.

If that 60% is not a representative sample than representing it as valid for "whites" and "blacks" is invalid.

And yet you have no problem with that.

But if the sample IS representative then comparing it to the rest of the nation, as I did IS valid.

Your attempt to insult my intelligence when your argument is, well what it is, really does not reflect well on you.

Like I said. GREAT AVATAR!

Congratulations, it looks like you actually managed to learn something today.

Yes, the FBI 60% data set is probably not an accurate representative sample of crime nationwide.

However the mathematical ratio derived from that sample was correct.

Now you can argue that the OP made an assumption based upon incomplete data but you cannot argue that his math was wrong, because it wasn't.

On the other hand you and Pops both were intent upon making mathematical errors because you didn't understand the flaws in using different source data.

So in that respect your math was wrong whereas the OP's math was correct.

Now where is that $500 Paypal deposit?

The FBI data is utter valid and representational. To submit 60% of a massive data set collected by the Federal Government is somehow grossly out of line with 40% of a massive data set is ridiculous.

Back up your claim or otherwise...bullshit.