Originally posted by Surtur
U gotta wonder why they cry about police more than gang violence.To be clear, I'm aware of the arguments. I just don't buy them. They suffer more from each other. And is going only after the cops an admission that trying to change the community is futile?
Pretty sure they cry when their families die.
If youre talking about protesting... To who?
Protests are usually when you want a change in the establishment.
Originally posted by Silent Master
We already have gun control, doesn't seem to stop the criminals.
I mean a complete ban on citizens carrying guns in public.
And next even in having one in their house, except for special circumstances where there is a risk of a wild animal attacking in the area. Even then a shot gun should suffice.
Originally posted by Darth Thor
Pretty sure they cry when their families die.If youre talking about protesting... To who?
Protests are usually when you want a change in the establishment.
I mean a complete ban on citizens carrying guns in public.
And next even in having one in their house, except for special circumstances where there is a risk of a wild animal attacking in the area. Even then a shot gun should suffice.
So you don't mean gun control, you mean gun bans and the destruction of the 2A
Originally posted by Darth Thor
Pretty sure they cry when their families die.If youre talking about protesting... To who?
Protests are usually when you want a change in the establishment.
George Floyd's family literally, within 2 days, started capitalizing on George Floyd's death. That's not a lot of grieving. It become their full time job to make as much money as possible off of GL's death. I'm not even kidding a tiny bit.
Originally posted by Darth Thor
I mean a complete ban on citizens carrying guns in public.
How do you suggest was enforce people illegally carrying guns in public? Maybe a carte blanche stop and frisk law that would allow police to stop anyone at any time and then frisked by police to look for weapons?
Originally posted by dadudemon
1)George Floyd's family literally, within 2 days, started capitalizing on George Floyd's death. That's not a lot of grieving. It become their full time job to make as much money as possible off of GL's death. I'm not even kidding a tiny bit.2)How do you suggest was enforce people illegally carrying guns in public? Maybe a carte blanche stop and frisk law that would allow police to stop anyone at any time and then frisked by police to look for weapons?
1) Lol heartless f***ers...
But at least they came out straight to condemn the looting in his name.
2) Would be a long process of disarming the country. Would likely take decades. But the sooner you start the more lives will be saved.
We had 3 people killed in that terror attack here in Saturday. Give anyone a gun and that becomes 30 pretty easily.
Originally posted by Darth Thor
1) Lol heartless f***ers...But at least they came out straight to condemn the looting in his name.
I didn't know that.
Not as bad as I thought, then.
Originally posted by Darth Thor
2) Would be a long process of disarming the country. Would likely take decades. But the sooner you start the more lives will be saved.We had 3 people killed in that terror attack here in Saturday. Give anyone a gun and that becomes 30 pretty easily.
I've heard this same argument many times and the counter-argument is always examples of mass "single-incident" murders being done with bombs and knives.
But, honestly, I don't think that's a good-faith argument against your position (there are great examples that are good counters but they are rare enough). Using a gun to kill people is much more efficient than a knife. Unless the attacker knows what they are doing with a knife, the gun is just better a better tool for murdering people.
But, I'd rather law abiding citizens be armed than disarming the law abiding citizens and then the bad guys use their guns to kill the disarmed people whenever they want. Reminds me of the Australian mass murder that happened recently - their strict gun laws didn't work.
Originally posted by dadudemon
1.4% of the population owned slaves at the peak.*
Hey Dudemon I thought I'd fact-check this information and sure enough something IMMEDIATELY came up on Politifact. Weird that. The interpretation of this data is incredibly shallow and gained traction via like, memes and viral pictures. You're a dude who is a fan of data so here you go:
The actual information is enlightening.
Originally posted by Quincy
Hey Dudemon I thought I'd fact-check this information and sure enough something IMMEDIATELY came up on Politifact. Weird that. The interpretation of this data is incredibly shallow and gained traction via like, memes and viral pictures. You're a dude who is a fan of data so here you go:The actual information is enlightening.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Well, according to Census data from 1860, only 1.4% of the US Population owned slaves at the peak of slave ownership. All of them were in the South. Of the southern states, only 4.9% of people owned slaves.So unless those people have ancestors from those slave holding southern states, it is extremely likely that those murdered mentally ill white men were not slave holders and neither were their ancestors. In raw numbers, just assuming an even distribution of murders across all states (which is not accurate as way more people exist in the US in states that weren't even states in 1860 and way more people live in non-slave-states from 1860 than not), you still have a 98.6% chance of that white man not being related to slave owners.
And why? Because owning a slave was expensive so only the rich in the South could afford slaves. If your family got poor and you lost your plantation or estate, you sold you slaves to get money to live.
Edit - I think the implications of your post is that I fell for a meme stat when the opposite is true. I read a politifact article that fact check a meme stat and it turns out the meme stat was true and Politifactcheck tries to perform mental gymnastics to make the stat as avoided as possible. Reality is, they confirmed the 1.4% statistic. They also confirmed that 4.9% statistic for just Southern Slave owning states.
Edit2 (timed-out) - I think the implications of your post is that I fell for a meme stat when the opposite is true. I read a politifact article that fact check a meme stat and it turns out the meme stat was true and Politifactcheck tries to perform mental gymnastics to make the stat as avoided as possible. Reality is, they confirmed the 1.4% statistic. They also confirmed that 4.9% statistic for just Southern Slave owning states.
And to demonstrate how Politifact tries to twist the facts to fit their narrative of "mass slave owners", the meme stated American People.
But Politifact twisted it until "families." That's quite dishonest since almost 100% of the time, only one person owned a slave (usually, the male husband or grandfather).
When we took a closer look, we found that the percentage of slaveholding families was dramatically higher than what the meme said, and that the number of slaves owned by blacks was presented in a misleading way.
And this is where the 1.4% figure comes from:
If one divides the number of slaveowners by the total free population of the United States, the figure is actually closer to 1.4%
Which is why I stopped using the 1.6% figure.
It says The 1860 Census counted "a total of 31,443,321 people, of which 3,953,760 were slaves." Due to this, it dilutes the "1.4" considering that percentage is counting slaves and even children in this figure.
"Using Census data to research his book, Glatthaar calculated that 4.9 percent of people in the slaveholding states owned slaves, that 19.9 percent of family units in those states owned slaves, and that 24.9 percent of households owned slaves. (Households are a broader category than families.)"
The graph attached on the same link you use breaks it down too.
"State-by-state figures show some variation. In Mississippi, 49 percent of families owned slaves, and in South Carolina, 46 percent did. In border states, the percentage was lower -- 3 percent in Delaware and 12 percent in Maryland. The median for slaveholding states was about 27 percent."
The 1.4 percentage figure is clearly skewed and easily muddled. Quoting it like that can come off as intentionally misleading
edit: oh you kept going, I didn't realize.
Originally posted by Quincy
The 1.4 percentage figure is clearly skewed and easily muddled. Quoting it like that can come off as intentionally misleadingedit: oh you kept going, I didn't realize.
The 1.4% figure is accurate and factual regardless of how others may want to represent the number. Considering slave ownership was concentrated almost 100% in the south, blaming white people for slavery is extremely dishonest.
Also stating that over 24%% of people owned slaves in the south is also dishonest because the figure is actually 4.9%.
I look for the dishonest and mental gymnastics representations of slavery and I love to debunk this common lefty-SJW talking point. It is among my most favorite "facts" to debunk.
The most honest representation of slavery, when discussing these facts, would read closer to this:
"1.4% of Americans owned slaves at the peak of slave ownership in 1860 because the majority of the US population was in non-slave owner states.
Of the Southern states where slavery was legal, the peak of slave ownership among the south was 4.9%. If you expand those figures to all people who directly benefited from slavery, such as households that had slaves, that figure can state that of the Southerners, about 24.9% of households owned slaves. Almost always, only one person owned a slave and that was usually the head of household."
US politics: police officers fired in North Carolina over racial slurs video - live updates