Maybe I don’t understand what you are saying - AFAICT the rates for rape, arson, assaults and burglary all show disproportionate rates for black males. (Cite.) A bit more than 6% of the US population is male and black.
Regards,
Shodan
Right, but white males are 30% of the population, and they commit 65% of the rape, 64% of the agg assaults, 72% of the arson, 67% of the other assaults.
The “fundamental problem” causing black gun-related deaths thus can’t be that black men qua black men have an outsized propensity for violence.
The table Shodan referenced doesn’t include breakout by gender. The 65% figure for Rape is for all genders, and more closely aligns with the population of white folks.
Why not? If one group commits twice as much of a crime as one would expect from their representation in a population, and another group commits five times as much, which group has a more out-sized propensity for violence?
Regards,
Shodan
The FBI definition of rape would not allow for female rapists.
Because the assertion was that the “fundamental problem” is that black men have a propensity for violence, and not anything about the prevalence of or policy toward gun violence due to any other factor. But we’re talking about gun violence related deaths, and that “propensity” doesn’t explain the data, because it doesn’t map to any other violent crime trends. Homicide is unique.
Is your 30% number including Hispanics? Because the other numbers you cite apparently do.
Hispanics in US census figures can be either white or black, but I believe they’re overwhelmingly counted as white. In any event, there are certainly a lot of them included in the “white” portion of the violent crime stats that you cite, so you shouldn’t be comparing to a “white” population number than excludes Hispanics.
Exactly. And therefore, the male population will commit, on average, slightly more than twice as many rapes as their percentage of the population. So your comparison of 30% and 65% doesn’t indicate anything disproportionate, even absent the Hispanic issue noted above.
I am still not following you, then. If we are talking only about murder, then black males are hugely over-represented. If we include other forms of violence, they are somewhat less hugely over-represented, but the difference in proportion is still very marked.
[QUOTE=Jimmy Chitwood]
Blacks are not committing assaults against each other to any outsized degree…
[/QUOTE]
I don’t think this is the case, and it is backed up by the chart to which I linked.
This is one cite (I grant you, Wiki) but it says
Assuming that holds true for both blacks and whites, then the 30% of white males who make up the US account for 51% or so of the aggravated assaults, and black males who make up 6% account for 26% or so.
That sounds pretty out-sized to me.
Again, maybe I don’t follow you. The special case of gun murder doesn’t sound so special to me.
Regards,
Shodan
As for the OP, it appears that Scott Adams might agree: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/146307088451/why-gun-control-cant-be-solved-in-the-usa