KI'm just kidding. I'm simply taking the opposite view of the anit black sentiments that some posters have that's all. But you raise a good point which is if you are not in a place known for black perpetrated homicides you are in good shape.
Shooting at Wisconsin Sikh temple - hostages inside
- Thread starter diehard
- Start date
Well those are fucked up numbers because you made it so that 100% of the blacks are killers. But you didn't specify where this party took place which also makes a difference.
Look there are more cars than motorcycles on the road. As a result of this you are more likely to be invovled in an accident with a car than a motorcylce. Motorcycles are probably more dangerous but that is besides the point.
You are just twisting numbers but they cannot refute my statement..... in north america there are more mass murderers/serial killers who are white than black killers of the same type. By more I am talking just sheer numbers not rates.
If you want to talk numbers correctly then it should be something like this.....
P(of meeting a serial killer that is white) = roughly 60%
P(of meeting a serial killer that is black) = roughly 30%
So if you know that there is a serial killer next door and you are in north america it is likely white.
P(of being killed by a stranger) = 16% in Canada
P(of being killed by an aquantance) = 84%
If you are like me and know far more white people than black then chances are a white aquantance will do the job first.
P(of a random Canadian being not black asian or aboriginal) = around 70%
P(of a random Canadian being black) = 3%
Even if 100% of blacks were killers and only about 4% of non black asian or aboriginals were killers then you'd have an equal probability of meeting a killer of that race (3%).
Taking this idea further.... we know that not all blacks are killers. So as long as there are less than a factor of 23 times (70 divide by 3) less black killers to non asian black or aboriginals killers your chances of a random killer in Canada being not black is quite high. Or are you going to try and claim that blacks are more than 23 times more likely to kill in Canada than non black/asian/aboriginal people?
BTW how is it that you accuse someone of innumeracy when you use an example that is unrealistic? You basically set up numbers to guarantee that the blacks in the rooms are killers.
In the example I gave 100% of the black guests are murderers, and 7-8% of the white guests are. You would have to be spectacularly stupid to think that I was implying those are correct rates for the population at large. Plainly the numbers were meant to drive home a point.
The general sense is accurate though. Urban blacks are significantly more likely to be murderers than urban whites. Just, it seems people were having trouble grokking the concept of rates when it was in the 1 per 100k range rather than in 10% or 100% range. So I made a playschool example so that the innumerate could follow along.
Obviously the rates in the general population are much lower. Obviously. Very obviously.
Why is it that you jump back and forth between qualifying/modifying your statements with urban blacks. When you don't say urban blacks it is assumed we are talking general population.
I have been discussing general population.
If you want to call it obvious then you agree there are more white killers in north america than black.
If murder is a non random event you are more likely to be killed by someone you know.... most of the black fearing people on terb probably have little to no black friends.
If murder is a purely random event then unless there are 23 times more black killers than white killers you are okay (in Canada, see above post for calculation)
In all likelihood murder falls somewhere between non random and random but in Canada you are probably more likely to be killed by a white person (because there are more whites).
There are two different topics here. When I'm talking about serial/spree/mass killers, I talk about blacks in general, as that's the data we have. When we talk about street gun violence I clarify that we are talking about urban blacks, and that there isn't any indication that there is a problem with blacks outside major cities.
On the serial/spree/mass killer topic the information we have is that the differences between races are small and likely explained by socio-economics. On the street gun topic there is clearly a very large racialized element to the crime not explained by the socio-economics. Victims of the Washington sniper were unrelated to the shooter, as with the Colorado shooting. Even the Virginia Tech case, where the guy attacked his own school, the people he actually shot were mostly strangers within that institution.
It's less clear that spree/serial/mass killers are likely to know their victims. There are many cases where there's some association, the killer attacks his own school/workplace/etc., but it's also true that a lot of them kill strangers.
For street gun violence, the high rate of crime by blacks implies that, even though most of it is black on black, that is still the largest source of risk for everyone else. You are more likely to be killed on the street by a black man than by any other race, even if you are not black.
Outside of street crime, your point is correct. Most murders are domestic and you're most likely to be murdered by your own family, following that by a friend or business partner.
Right and I am talking about murder in general not a specific type.
Even your statement on being killed in a street crime is misleading though. An innocent bystander in an urban shooting is more likely to be killed by a black person BUT the odds/probability of getting shot in the streets of the GTA is still low. We are talking hit by lightning low.
Even your statement on being killed in a street crime is misleading though. An innocent bystander in an urban shooting is more likely to be killed by a black person BUT the odds/probability of getting shot in the streets of the GTA is still low. We are talking hit by lightning low.
Well.....one thing we've accomplished, fuji now knows the difference between a serial killer and a spree killer.
Thats progress
Serial killer, spree killer, mass murderer, doesn't matter the semantics. Dead is dead.
Anyway, we are drifting off topics. The Sikhs have every right to complain when they are the victims but they should also condemn loudly when member of their own community are the perpetrators. I think large numbers of their community actually supported/protected the Air India bomber(s).
You think? Something tells me your understanding of the Sikh community is as well founded as your knowledge of the South African society and we saw how well that went.
So, how is your knowledge of the Sikh community and why wasn't the bomber(s) caught and convicted? (I told you already that The Economist ranked South Africa 92 on their list of quality of life countries. Not very impressive.)
We already discussed the ranking, 92 out of 200, so what? What was their ranking in the mid 8o's under apartheid? At least they are improving in the areas I already outlined. The Economist also forecasts and 8%+ increase in GDP second only to Gabon in Africa;
http://www.economist.com/node/21533441?zid=304&ah=e5690753dc78ce91909083042ad12e30
That depends on what colour you are.
I've never been worried about blacks in that situation and I've been in such situations.
Funny that the guy who defends Omar Khadr as being unjustly accused paints the people of Muslim East Africa as Al Queda.
You misread the growth rate. It is actually 13th out of 15 countries. Almost the worst of the 15 listed.
Here is a recent article about Sikh support for a suicide bomber.
http://cbc.ca/politics/story2012/03/28/pol-sikh-parliamenthill/milewski.htlml
http://cbc.ca/politics/story2012/03/28/pol-sikh-parliamenthill/milewski.htlml
I do stand corrected the graph is an odd one, but SA still has the second highest GDP of the countries compared, not too shabby.
