You cannot justify committing the most violent crimes by saying you have the most people. I don't cherry pick anything, you just can't deal with the fact that whites are the most violent race in this country. I have at least 241 years of documentation that proves it. This is what whites don't seem to get.
There's no "justification" for violent crime involved. I'm merely pointing out that you, once again, seem to have a problem accepting the difference between total crime and crime rate.
Let's say you find a town that has a population of 100 women and 20 men and look at the crime stats. Of 70 violent crimes committed, 50 are by women and 20 are by men. Based on the logic you are using, that means that women in the town are more violent than men. However, based on the rate of crime committed, the men are clearly more violent than the women: there is 1 violent crime for every man in the town, while there is 1 violent crime for every 2 women. The men would be committing crimes at a higher rate.
If you want to talk about who commits the most crimes, you have to look at the number of crimes compared to the number of people. Specifically, you have to look at the number of crimes compared to the number of people who are part of whatever groups you are talking about. In the case of your OP, you would need to know who committed the crimes and their race, then compare that to the populations of those races in the state. If 40% of violent crimes are committed by a group that makes up 20% of the population, they will have a higher crime rate than a group that is 50% of the population and commits 50% of the crime.
I'm honestly unsure of whether you understand what you are doing or not. Ratios and rates are a fairly simple concept.
I'm confident your "documentation that proves" whites are the most violent race is, at best, evidence. Considering how you misunderstand or intentionally misrepresent the statistics involved, I wonder how much of your supposed proof would even qualify as evidence.
I am not going to deny the history of oppression and atrocities committed by whites in this country. Your attempt to simplify violence as race-based is as foolish as those whites who try to do the same thing regarding minorities.
Montrovant, you argue about rates talking about the number of people then use percentages to try justifying your argument. If you wan tot get amore accurate picture you take the numbers of those of each race committing a crime against the number of people of that race. So then if there are 40 million blacks and 4,000 murders each one done by a different black person ir comes out to 1/10,000th of a percent. That tells you the likelihood of being killed someone black, .Mote blacks die as sult of hog bppd pressure and car wrecks.
.I've done the math Montrovant. You don't seem to understand this. Nor do most of the rest of the whites here relative to my consistently telling you that I have spent 32 years of my life studying these things, In 2015 if we exclude racial bias and assume each arrest was on a different black person, 5 percent of the black population were arrested for crimes 95 percent of all blacks are law abiding non criminal citizens. To make claims that blacks are 13 percent of the population but make up 26 percent of the arrests like that's the national problem when you make up 70 percent is dishonest. And when you measure everything that causes crimes which do not exist in many white communities, then you cannot see justification for any argument that say whites are expected to have the most total crime because they are the largest group of people..
What on Earth are you babbling about?
I've said from the beginning that race should not be looked at as a cause of crime. You are the one who has tried to portray race as a major factor in crimes being committed, not me. I've merely pointed out that looking only at total numbers of crimes committed, without also showing the ratio of crimes committed compared to population, is a bad indicator. You jump around from race being the issue, to social and economic circumstances, and back again.
You didn't even provide evidence of the number of violent crimes in Louisiana and Alaska committed by whites in your OP. You simply showed evidence that they are states with the highest violent crime rates, then showed some population percentages. Those numbers are meaningless without knowing who actually committed the crimes in question, yet you tried to use them to claim that whites are more violent than others.
I don't care how many years you've spent studying. If your study involves ignoring important information in order to try to fit statistics into a preconceived agenda, that study is pretty worthless. If you think that showing that a state has a high violent crime rate, and then showing that the state has a 65% white population, is enough to prove that whites are committing violent crime at a higher rate than other races, the math you are using is fuzzy, at best.
.I think that if you can use crime rate as an excuse to deny the total numbers of crimes committed, then you need to shut the fuck up. Because whites commit more than double the crime blacks do in the United States. You want to make claims based on crime rates when the rate of crime is whites are 2 times more likely to commit a crime than anyone else. Understand this, I am not the one who has made race the primary claim of criminality. Whites have done this for as long as his has been a nation. And no matter how much you want to claim that I should not be done, Police departments use this as basis for harassment and stops of blacks , and it is also the rationale used when they decide to end someones life who is black based on the belief that blacks are violent so then they enter the situation already with the fear of potential violence that might happen to them by that black person even If such is not on that black persons mind. Until that stops, whites need to be educated on the facts.
Ratios can be made out of anything, .Nationally if you want to make things into ratios to determine rates whites commit 7 out of every 10 crimes, blacks 2.6. The ratio of crime for that is whites 2.69:1 compared to blacks.. But there is nothing wrong with that to those like you, because you are 5 times the population so then for you to see a problem you must commit more than 5 times the crime. That's stupid and for anyone to keep on arguing the 13 percent excuse is stupid.
I posted up the information about Alaska because I knew someone like you would enter trying what you are doing. Alaska is 4 percent black .so to think that 4 percent are the ones committing the highest rate of violent crime is insane. You have not entered one thread to argue with whites about there using race as basis for crime You are only here now because the finger is pointed at whites and in usual fashion certain types of white people can't stand to have people measure them with the same standards they do for everyone else.
Again, you don't understand the numbers you are talking about. 4 percent of a population can absolutely have the highest rate of violent crime. That may not be the case in Alaska, I haven't seen any numbers about who actually commits the violent crimes there as far as race, but the fact that blacks make up a low percentage of the population doesn't mean their rate of committing crime must also be low. It could be that blacks in Alaska commit 1 violent crime per 100 members of the population, or that blacks in Alaska commit 1 violent crime per 100000 members of the population. That is what crime rate is about: how many crimes are committed per X number of people.
So, yes, whites commit more crimes than other races. I've never even attempted to deny that. That doesn't mean whites have a higher crime rate.
I would image that in many towns, cities, or counties, whites DO have the higher crime rate. That isn't the case nationally, however.
I don't enter a lot of race-based threads. This board has a number of long-term white supremacist types. I've done a bit of arguing with them in the past, but for the most part, I ignore them. Their idiotic bigotry doesn't often deserve a response. People like Tank or Steve McGarrett are caricatures, blaming every wrong on blacks, or Jews, or whichever minority happens to be in their sights at a given point in time. There are others who are less aggressive with their bigotry, plenty of them. I have no problem with saying that anti-black racism is based in fear, or ignorance, or a desire to feel superior. I have no problem saying that anti-black racism still occurs today, not only individually, but systemically, although to a far lesser extent than in the past, thankfully. I believe that the history of oppression and racism against blacks in this country absolutely has played a part in many of the troubles faced by black people today. On the other hand, I don't think that "blaming whitey" does any good in solving those issues, but that seems to be your focus.
You also have no idea of my race. I'm pretty sure you've never asked me and I've never told you.
Oh, and on a statistical note, some crime and population stats do not include Hispanic or Latin as a race, only an ethnicity. In percentages of the population, for example, whites are listed as 77.5% of the population in 2014 by the Census Bureau, but non-Hispanic whites are 62.2%. I've only seen whites with the non-Hispanic category.
You are not educating anyone on facts here. You are only opining on what conclusion should be drawn from the facts. And all too often, you are doing so while leaving out or ignoring facts.
