http://archive.is/mGUJx

It is a low-quality sensationalist article (hence why I linked an archive.is link so you don't have to give them ad revenue)

Another way to look at this phenomenon is to consider the likelihood that police are more reluctant to shoot suspects WITHOUT video evidence because more serious charges may be brought against them.

"But only a small number of the shootings — roughly 5 percent — occurred under the kind of circumstances that raise doubt and draw public outcry, according to an analysis by The Washington Post."

From a far-left source even.

If the police are perfectly fine with shooting suspects while being recorded, and only 1 in 20 fatal shootings even raise doubts - HMMMMMM

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/tables/table-43

FBI crime statistics indicate Blacks and Hispanics are shot by the police in a similar proportion to their violent crime rates.

http://archive.is/tdQoX

Percent distributed, arrests for VIOLENT CRIME
58.4 (white) 38.7 (black)

(Hispanics isn't counted as a race, and most Hispanics will be counted as "white")

Percent distributed, fatal police shootings
41.5 (white) 25.5 (black) 15.7 (Hispanic ) 0.03 (other) 18.2 (unknown)

HOWEVER, HISPANICS ARE MOSTLY COUNTED AS WHITE BY THE FBI.

That meant the statistics could be rearranged. White becomes 57.1%
Keep in mind that the race of 106 of the 581 people shot in 2017 was not released. They very well may have been Black.

So Blacks are indeed shot less frequently by the police than they are arrested for violent crimes, as a proportion of the total cases in both of those fields.
You would think the narrative that police target black people to be shot, is actually fiction!

Note: this information is available, but only through sanitized, sensationalized yellow journalism articles by the corporate media! They'll give you the statistics, but it will be buried under a bunch of verbiage.

Reducing civilian gun ownership would help too.

AmRen is infinitely more accurate than the corporate media, but it's always good to beat the Left with statistics from their own biased sources.

@Cata lol imagine actually believing this bullshit.

Look at a world map of murder rates and a world map of gun ownership. Most gun murders are committed by gangs killing other gangs and taking out hits, not private individuals or psychos that go on shooting sprees.

Edited 8/1/2017 02:51:01

Cartels can buy their guns on the black market with all the money they rake in.

Private citizens, yeah.. not so much.

Letting every psycho moron having an automatic gun is 3rd world standard.

Oh yeah, high gun ownership definetely prevents the "gangs" from killing more people. Good job on that so far.
If you restrict gun ownership, the "gangs" will have a harder time getting guns too.
Now dont come with "they can buy it on the black market". Because according to that logic we should legalise murder too, just because people can still do it.

Edited 8/1/2017 02:59:17

>Letting every psycho moron having an automatic gun is 3rd world standard.

Categorically false, gun ownership is lower in the third world, but gun violence is higher.
The political situation in countries like Latin America and Africa is responsible for the violence, not the guns themselves.


>If you restrict gun ownership, the "gangs" will have a harder time getting guns too.

Gangs already have guns. Its the ordinary citizens that don't have them in third world countries where gangs have significant power.

The idea isn't to make it harder for gangs to buy guns, the idea is to arm people who aren't part of gangs, to counterbalance the political power of gangs.

Every time something becomes contraband, whether it be marijuana or alcohol, or guns, it doesn't simply disappear, it falls into fewer hands yes, because normal people don't generally break the law, but it enters the domain of organized crime. By making something illegal, you invite the worsts of society to participate in that trade.

Edited 8/1/2017 03:05:59

the idea is to arm people who aren't part of gangs, to counterbalance the political power of gangs.

Does this part actually work out?


Actually it's the police's job to figth organised crime and not the job of the general population.

Edited 8/1/2017 03:12:59

Race is everything, guys!

PRETTY BUILDINGS

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.aol.com/amp/2016/07/28/5-american-cities-that-require-you-to-own-a-gun/

Since different races have different brain mass, and surprise surprise, a race with lower on average brain mass and IQ is responsible for more impulsive violence, yes. Race is a key factor in the murder rate and gun crime rate.

The Left wins this debate by default though, because they always make you prove that literally every black person has a low IQ, even though no one actually makes that argument.

From a far-left source even.

Oh my sweet summer child.

You americans really gotta find the definition of left-right positions lol. Calling the Post a far-left journal is the same as considering the Clintons left wing politicians, you got to see further than that.

You see, there's a problem when you say something is far-left, or far-right for instance, if you can easily find things that are more extreme than what you said was an extreme, then you're saying foolishnesses.

Calling Trump a Far-right politician is stupid as fuck, he's no Hitler or Pinochet, just a moron. Calling the Post far-left ignores the fact that they endorsed Clinton in october 2016! A far-left journal would at the very least endorse Bernie, or like some real far-left journals say he's not leftist enough, isn't that right socialistworker.org ?

Either way, try putting people in the right boxes, qualifying someone as an extremist just because he doesn't fit your political view is the root of insane levels of polarisation no democratic society should have.

oh my sweet summer child when will you learn to respond to the main argument presented in the post instead of grasping at straws

"Race is everything"
That's just... I don't even know the word for it.

I don't even know the word for it

I think the word you are looking for is no. It is short, it is useful, it is a great word.

no

"No" isn't enough for it. I don't know. Maybe brazen or sheer? Maybe she'll stop if I just give her some gum.

Why does Tabby speak as if she/he met a true arab with an IQ of 75 or a black with an IQ of 90.... Seriously I am so sure she/he just speaks out of assumption

No, there are stats.

An armed population is a free population.

The population should be armed, mostly to defend against foreign and loyal-less militaries and militias.

Race isn't everything, don't do this please.