Nigers in this country kill more people than any other race
They are only 13% of the population but commit about 50% of the homicides
Fact
A 9-year-old boy shot his older sister to death over a video game controller, sheriff
- Thread starter Cancel 2018.2
- Start date
Nigers in this country kill more people than any other race
They are only 13% of the population but commit about 50% of the homicides
Fact
Absurdity and lying; the last refuge for ignorance and stupidity. Yay you!
Blacks committed 52 percent of homicides between 1980 and 2008, despite composing just 13 percent of the population. Across the same timeframe, whites committed 45 percent of homicides while composing 77% of the population, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics.
countryboy
Verified User
countryboy
Verified User
These people were either from Nigeria, or, you are literally so stupid, you can't even spell vile racial epithets properly. My money's on the latter.
BodyDouble
New member
Neither are 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, & 24 year olds. We're talking about kids and you say they exclude 15, 16, & 17 year olds. So you add those 3 ages along with 7 others (18-24yo. not kids) and you make your point after you move the goal posts in your favor. That's disingenuous. Especially when you consider the fact that the 18-24 yo. group most likely commit the bulk of those gun deaths. It can be said that you cherry-picked the add-on data to make the fake findings that you wanted to.
Cancel 2018.2
Oh, hi
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello BodyDouble,
me: "Certainly ages 15, 16, and 17 are not adults."
Well then if they are not adults by your own admission they must be children.
Prior to reaching the age of 18 they are legally children. I say that because it is true.
The disingenuous part was when the purveyors of this fake news internet gossip came to a highly misleading conclusion which is unsupported by the data.
Way more people die from guns than pools. Pools are more deadly for infants and small children, but at some age break point between age 15 to possibly 20 at most, which we can not precisely establish with the given data, guns are immensely more dangerous than pools. That means for most people in the nation guns are more deadly than pools. They also completely erroneously called back yard pools responsible for all drownings with absolutely nothing to support that claim. A complete fabrication.
The 15-24 yo group were responsible for a total of 7.357 gun deaths in 2016. That far eclipses the total 461 gun deaths attributable to 1-14 age. That age group also had 592 drownings in all bodies of water, not just backyard pools. How ingenuous is it to claim pools are responsible for all drownings with absolutely no data to support that? Fake News.
It can be said that the President is pregnant with a Martian baby. It wouldn't make it true. There are 3 years of childhood in the group available in the given data 15-24. There are 7 years of adulthood. If we estimated on the basis of the assumption of proportional spread of data then 30% of the figure would go to the 15-17 group and 70% of the figure would go to the adult group. (Why does it matter the age of the victims of gun deaths anyway? Do we not care about adults who are victims of gun shootings?)
You think the 18-24 yo group would be more likely to be a victim of another gun death. So what if we slanted that spread in your favor? How about we say only 20% of the deaths for the larger group are age 15-17, and 80% are age 18-24?
That would be
.20 x 7357 = 1,471
Add that to the 461 gun deaths in the 1-14 age group
1,471 + 461 = 1,932 estimated gun deaths for children using the 20/80 proportioning of given age group 15-24 data.
But we also need to apply the same calculations to the drownings.
There were 828 drownings in the 1-14 groups. There were 592 drownings in the 15-24 group. Since there is no reason to think there would be more drownings above age 18, we use a 30/70 split here.
.30 x 592 = 178
178 + 828 = 1,006.
That's an estimated 1,932 gun deaths vs 1,006 drownings for ages 1-17 in 2016.
What if the 15-17 yo figure was only a tenth of the whole group?
.10 x 7357 = 732
732 + 461 = 1193.
1193 gun deaths vs 1006 drownings in all bodies of water.
Still more gun deaths than pool deaths. And the benefit of the doubt was even given to the drownings figure, keep that at a proportional ratio.
And we have not yet begun to estimate how many of the drownings are pool deaths vs other bodies of water.
Or talked about why any differentiation should be made about which data to look at when determining if pools are indeed more dangerous than guns.
For all ages combined it is hands down.
Guns are FAR more dangerous than pools.
me: "Certainly ages 15, 16, and 17 are not adults."
Well then if they are not adults by your own admission they must be children.
Prior to reaching the age of 18 they are legally children. I say that because it is true.
The disingenuous part was when the purveyors of this fake news internet gossip came to a highly misleading conclusion which is unsupported by the data.
Way more people die from guns than pools. Pools are more deadly for infants and small children, but at some age break point between age 15 to possibly 20 at most, which we can not precisely establish with the given data, guns are immensely more dangerous than pools. That means for most people in the nation guns are more deadly than pools. They also completely erroneously called back yard pools responsible for all drownings with absolutely nothing to support that claim. A complete fabrication.
The 15-24 yo group were responsible for a total of 7.357 gun deaths in 2016. That far eclipses the total 461 gun deaths attributable to 1-14 age. That age group also had 592 drownings in all bodies of water, not just backyard pools. How ingenuous is it to claim pools are responsible for all drownings with absolutely no data to support that? Fake News.
It can be said that the President is pregnant with a Martian baby. It wouldn't make it true. There are 3 years of childhood in the group available in the given data 15-24. There are 7 years of adulthood. If we estimated on the basis of the assumption of proportional spread of data then 30% of the figure would go to the 15-17 group and 70% of the figure would go to the adult group. (Why does it matter the age of the victims of gun deaths anyway? Do we not care about adults who are victims of gun shootings?)
You think the 18-24 yo group would be more likely to be a victim of another gun death. So what if we slanted that spread in your favor? How about we say only 20% of the deaths for the larger group are age 15-17, and 80% are age 18-24?
That would be
.20 x 7357 = 1,471
Add that to the 461 gun deaths in the 1-14 age group
1,471 + 461 = 1,932 estimated gun deaths for children using the 20/80 proportioning of given age group 15-24 data.
But we also need to apply the same calculations to the drownings.
There were 828 drownings in the 1-14 groups. There were 592 drownings in the 15-24 group. Since there is no reason to think there would be more drownings above age 18, we use a 30/70 split here.
.30 x 592 = 178
178 + 828 = 1,006.
That's an estimated 1,932 gun deaths vs 1,006 drownings for ages 1-17 in 2016.
What if the 15-17 yo figure was only a tenth of the whole group?
.10 x 7357 = 732
732 + 461 = 1193.
1193 gun deaths vs 1006 drownings in all bodies of water.
Still more gun deaths than pool deaths. And the benefit of the doubt was even given to the drownings figure, keep that at a proportional ratio.
And we have not yet begun to estimate how many of the drownings are pool deaths vs other bodies of water.
Or talked about why any differentiation should be made about which data to look at when determining if pools are indeed more dangerous than guns.
For all ages combined it is hands down.
Guns are FAR more dangerous than pools.
Last edited:
More blather...
BodyDouble
New member
Oh, my bad. I made a boo-boo. A boo-boo that I inadvertently corrected when I said...
But you just HAD to say I admitted 18-24yo people are children. Disingenuous again.
The rest of your post is just numbers that you assume to be true based on zero study or fact. If you want to refute a claim, like you did with gun vs. pool deaths, at least have solid facts to back it up to make your claim. Or, continue to be disingenuous and keep posting.
I think 25 yr olds these days access risk quite well.
Sirthinksalot
Verified User
You are an exampled of why we don't let humans with immature brains define other humans with immature brains.
some persons become adult at 5, 6, 7. do the maths. I would give double credit to a 5 year old testimony over the testimony of a 15 yr old. the damned weaponize and waste the youth.