🚀 go-pugleaf

Eric L wrote:
> 
> >
> >No, the opposite. If less people are doing more of something, they're
> >doing it at a higher rate. Here's the math: let p = US population.
> 
> That's where I have a problem. I understand your calculations precisely but my
> argument was that since there are more whites to kill than there are blacks it
> only seems logical that the minority population would kill more majority. 

If it were a totally random event, yes. Put 100 marbles in a box; 80
white, 12 black, 8 purple. If you pick them at random, you will get
about 7 white marbles for every black marble drawn. But the original
statement, which was then disputed, is that blacks commit more violent
crimes against whites than whites commit against blacks. Using the
homicide rates for 1976-1998, blacks commit more homicides against
whites both in absolute numbers and on a per capita basis.


>Your
> logic would seem to state that blacks should be killing blacks and whites
> killing whites. >

That's generally the case. If you check the statistics, you'll see that
most homicides have victim and offender of the same race. 


>Some crimes aren't done out of hate just lunacy and as a result
> of others. Blacks have a higher crime rate (and I'll leave the reasons up in
> the air) and whites tend to be in a higher socioeconomic standing so chances
> are a black criminal is more likely to rob a white victim and kill them as a
> result.
> There was a further point I'd like to make but I couldn't find the source to
> help me enforce it and the link your provided was broken
> 
> Eric

Here's the link:  http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm  The
third graph down is the victim/offender graph; if you click on it, you
can see the source data behind the graph.