Violence is connected to poverty not race

Got a mirror

 

Where is the poverty indicator?

 

???? You can't even pretend an inner city student in Chicago Public Schools has access to the same educational opportunities as his counterpart in ultra-wealthy Lake Forest just 20 miles to the north.

 

OP's premise got thoroughly destroyed on the first page.

 

It's not required. There are more poor whites in the country than poor blacks or poor Hispanics. If poor whites were more likely to commit violent crime they would be committing the majority of these crimes.

The only explanation that makes sense is if non-impoverished minorities were committing way more crime than non-impoverished whites. That puts a major left-wing talking point in jeopardy.

 

You are assuming facts not in evidence. And lets be clear on what the biggest indicator is....MALE

 

Why do white and Asian women raise less violent males than Black and Hispanic women?

What are Black and Hispanic women teaching their sons to make them so violent?

 

• Poor Hispanics (25.3 per 1,000) had lower rates of violence compared to poor whites (46.4 per 1,000) and poor blacks (43.4 per 1,000).

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/press/hpnvv0812pr.cfm

 

No sir. Those are VICTIMIZATION rates. Not violent crime OFFENDER rates.

Try finding the statistics for OFFENDER rates of poor people broken down by race and get back to us.

But once you do you won't get back to us because it will destroy your argument.

 

They have more as a matter of fact, less cost if not completely free, lower scores for admission, greater job opportunities on graduation... ESPECIALLY in government work and contracting. Pretend that we haven't been practicing discriminatory affirmative action in education for 40 years all you like though, and that it's not zero sum, your prerogative.

 

I've posted the evidence, it shows whites committing a disproportionately low amount of crime compared to blacks and Hispanics, which is the exact opposite of what this study suggests.

Nobody disputes that men commit more violence than women. What is in dispute is whether or not minorities commit more crime than whites.

 

Those are VICTIMIZATION rates. Not OFFENDER rates.

Meaning those are the per capita numbers for the VICTIMS of violent crime.

 

Nonsense, people excel when they apply themselves and take initiative! Maybe twenty years ago your way of copout would ring true but in the last 15 years a plethora of information and instructional influences have come to age via PC and internet! There is hardly a excuse today to lag behind because of excuses like over crowding and lack of access to better study material and instruction!

And it's all free to those looking to escape the grasp of the victim mentality!

 

Again. Victimization rates. Not offender rates.

 

This was my first thought as well, but I reconsidered when I read that "Poor urban blacks (51.3 per 1,000) had rates of violence similar to poor urban whites (56.4 per 1,000)". I suppose "rates of violence" means that they are being victimized, but I thought it could have meant their rate of committing violence.

 

You're talking higher education. And that in itself should point to the deficiencies in both public education and the cultural value placed on education in poor and minority communities - private and public universities both have lowered standards for minority students.

 

You people are discussing something that's not true. The source he provided provides statistics for victimization rates. In other words poor whites and blacks per capita have about the same chance to be VICTIMS of violent crime. Not offenders.

 

That's exactly what it means. Look at the stats themselves in the document provided by the BJS.

Not just the misleading summary.

 

From his own source.

Presents findings from 2008 to 2012 on the relationship between households that were above or below the federal poverty level and nonfatal violent victimization, including rape or sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault. This report examines the violent victimization experiences of persons living in households at various levels of poverty, focusing on type of violence, victim's race or Hispanic origin, and location of residence.


Again. These are victimization rates. Not offender rates. This report details how likely the poor of each race are to be VICTIMS of violent crime not OFFENDERS.

 

Inner city students are passing through metal detectors on their way into school - which is more a day care than an educational institution as hopefully momz is off her crack binge before Shaniqua makes it home from school.

In such an environment even the few students who do apply themselves are hard pressed to find an outlet for their academic prowess and are usually dumbed down with the rest of the riff raff.

 

I would read that both ways - a rate of violence would measure both the commission and victimization of violent crimes in a given locale or demographic.

 

No the wording is misleading. The numbers in that sentence they provide are VICTIMS not offenders. You can see it in the stats they provide.

 

They are wrong.

Violence is connected to hope, acceptance, and love. When there is none, there is a greater chance for violence. I know poor who were not violent. When they had no hope for themselves, they still loved each other and their neighbors. Most times, they had hope in something, even if it was only forgiveness and life after death.

 

But it doesn't tell you who is doing the victimizing.

 

Here is the actual link to the study not the summary.

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/hpnvv0812.pdf

Look at page 4. Notice those are the rates given in the summary. But the wording of the summary is misleading to make it appear as if these are offender rates when they're not.

"Poor whites and blacks had higher rates of violent victimization than poor Hispanics

e overall pattern of persons in poor households having the highest rates of violent victimization was consistent for both non-Hispanic whites and non-Hispanic blacks ( gure 4). e rate of violent victimization was 46.4 per 1,000 for poor whites and 43.4 per 1,000 for poor blacks. For both groups, persons in high-income households had the lowest rates of violence. However, this pattern did not hold for Hispanics. In 2008–12, the rate of violent victimization for Hispanics did not vary signi cantly across poverty levels."