Don't White People Kill Each Other, Too?

The Root ^ | April 10, 2012 | Edward Wyckoff Williams

[PapaBear3625]

Most people who are murdered are killed by a member of their own race. I have often heard that most murder victims are at least acquainted with their killer.

Most killings appear to be gang-bangers killing rival gang bangers. So, yes, they are "acquainted", to the extent of being able to recognize that their target is a member of a rival gang.

[coloradan]

I suspect (no I know for a fact without being told) that alcohol has a greater role in the murder rate than illegal drugs in the murder rate.

I don't disagree.

Nevertheless, please find some research on the mind-altering effects of blue jeans (particularly on judgement), and then get back to me.

What other evidence would the other poster require, other than seeing how many murderers wear blue jeans relative to the population at large? Once again, I claim that correlation does not equal causation. The fact that murderers use drugs doesn't prove drugs induce people to murder any more than the fact that murderers wear jeans proves that jeans induce people to murder.

[presidio9]

The fact that murderers use drugs doesn't prove drugs induce people to murder any more than the fact that murderers wear jeans proves that jeans induce people to murder.

You are missing the point. We know that drugs cause people to make stupid choices. Therefore we can deduce that if a person commits a murder while under the influence of drugs, the drugs may have played a role in that behavior, especially if the person does not have a history of murdering people when he wasn't using. This is not the same thing as saying that a guy who normally wears khakis, but happens to be wearing bluejeans the afternoon he walks in on his wife and the UPS guy was in any way influenced by his choice of apparel.

Put it another way: I suspect (no I know for a fact without being told) that if we were able to remove drugs and alcohol from society, the murder rate would go down.

[Molon Labbie]

This article conveniently forgot to mention that Latinos/Hispanics are categorized as white by the DOJ.

So what are the real numbers?

[coloradan]

I suspect (no I know for a fact without being told) that if we were able to remove drugs and alcohol from society, the murder rate would go down.

And you know this for a fact because you know that the murder rates during the Prohibition, and subsequently during the War On Some Drugs, were a lot lower than before or after these completely excellent experiments in social engineering? Or do you have some other fact(s) at your disposal?

[presidio9]

And you know this for a fact because you know that the murder rates during the Prohibition, and subsequently during the War On Some Drugs, were a lot lower than before or after these completely excellent experiments in social engineering? Or do you have some other fact(s) at your disposal?

I suspect (no I know for a fact without being told) that you are a goofy libertarian. How do I know this? Because you are clearly so obsessed with drugs and the issue of drug legality that you make up arguments for me.

Notice that my point was about supposed effect of "remov[ing] drugs and alcohol from society," not how that would be accomplished. But since you asked, it is a fact that the murder rate did not go up appreciably during Prohibition, that use of alcohol was not illegal during prohibition, and that a disproportionate number of all murders during prohibition were , in fact, related to alcohol. Furthermore, there is a direct correlation between the explosion of the murder rate in the last quarter of the 20th Century and the mainstream recreational use of mind altering drugs other than alcohol. All of this information is readily available on the web.

[Ken522]

Do you know there is a town in Colorado (in the mountains) named after your screen name?

[Aetius]

Yeah it’s a very dishonest article. The math is embarrassing.

[arthurus]

N’est ce pas?

[arthurus]

Actually, it is not so mal a prop.If the prop fits...

[jocon307]

“Although I do not have statistics at the ready, I believe alcohol use is probably involved in more murders, but none of those alcohol-related murders is about the purchase of or access to the substance itself.”

I think what you say is largely true, but there was some case that I saw noted in the last few days (don’t know if it appeared here or elsewhere) where some fine upstanding fellow beat his mom (or grandma?) to death (or nearly) because she wouldn’t give him no dough to buy both illegal drugs and beer!

So, do we chalk this up in the “drugs” category or the “drink” category? I’m not sure. Also, I only read the brief summary so I have no surmise on the race of the people involved.

[coloradan]

I suspect (no I know for a fact without being told) that you are a goofy libertarian. How do I know this? Because you are clearly so obsessed with drugs and the issue of drug legality that you make up arguments for me.

First, I don't make up arguments, I asked you questions. Then again, I shouldn't need to make up any goofy arguments for you, you are capable enough of that yourself. Notice that my point was about supposed effect of "remov[ing] drugs and alcohol from society," not how that would be accomplished.

You don't know what it would be like, making drugs and alcohol magically disappear without the mechanism for their removal having any effect. Nobody does. It's simply impossible.

But since you asked, it is a fact that the murder rate did not go up appreciably during Prohibition, that use of alcohol was not illegal during prohibition, and that a disproportionate number of all murders during prohibition were , in fact, related to alcohol.

According to this:

the murder rate plummeted in about 1934, soon after the repeal of the Prohibition (1933).

Furthermore, there is a direct correlation between the explosion of the murder rate in the last quarter of the 20th Century and the mainstream recreational use of mind altering drugs other than alcohol. All of this information is readily available on the web.

That time frame wouldn't possibly be coincident with the start of the War on Drugs, would it? Nixon, 1971? The fact dealers kill one another in large numbers over valuable sales turf doesn't necessarily mean drugs turn users into murderers in large numbers. I don't think either of you can separate the extent to which drug usage has this behavioral effect of people vs. the fact that the War on Drugs raises the stakes for all involved in it, to the point of murder. I will actually concede that drug usage might induce some people to commit murder who otherwise wouldn't have, but I believe that effect pales in comparison to the rates at which dealers kill one another in turf wars, and for that matter the rate at which SWAT teams kill suspects in dynamic entries, whether at the correct address or at the wrong address.

[presidio9]

First, I don't make up arguments, I asked you questions. Then again, I shouldn't need to make up any goofy arguments for you, you are capable enough of that yourself.

Are you too stupid to understand that your own question presupposed an argument on my part in favor of Prohibition? Go back and re-read what you and I both wrote. I made a hypothetical observation. You converted that into a defense on Prohibition. Then you made a series of causational suppositions to support your point. It's enough to make the head spin!

Since you asked, the figures are also readily available on the web to demonstrate that the slight national increase in murder rate under prohibition was a result of a dramatic increase in the city of Chicago, which had a corrupt police force. Al Capone killed seven rival gangsters on Valentine's Day 1929 alone. The public outcry over the state of the city corruption was such that federal law enforcement was called in to protect the peace.

Meanwhile, under prohibition the national crime rate decreased 38%, domestic violence decreased 82%, assault decreased 53%, the number of incarcerated inmates decreased 72% (and many prisons were closed), the list goes on. The health benefits alone (deaths due to cirrhosis cut by 50%) are a good place to start. My point here is not to defend Prohibition, just to make you understand that you can't be informed if you're getting all of your facts from one group with an agenda and a habit of regurgitation.

For example, your observation

"That time frame wouldn't possibly be coincident with the start of the War on Drugs, would it? Nixon, 1971?"

is, at best, misguided. Any good libertarian knows that while Nixon declared a vague "War on Drugs," it was Ronald Reagan who was responsible for the strict federal enforcement policies that you know and hate today. Your own figures indicate a regression below the norm on homicides while Reagan was in office. Bush41 eased up on drug enforcement to the extent that Ross Perot made strengthening the laws a central issue in his campaign. You will note an uptick under Bush41 and Clinton, followed by a downward correction under Bush43 (who hated drugs and wasn't fond of alcohol). So if you're looking for causation there, you're barking up the wrong tree.

[Sherman Logan]

What is not demonstrated by the graphs is that there are large numbers of out of control random killings by blacks. Their murder patterns are quite similar to those of whites, except at a higher rate.

[ImJustAnotherOkie]

Can I see past the nest?

[lentulusgracchus]

Both groups kill their own groups in rates over 80%. Whites are the largest group that kills whites.

During the late 80's and early 90's (the crack-wars crime wave) blacks were killing almost 50% of all white victims and about 91% of all black victims (the black-on-black crime rate is about the same today, hasn't changed by more than a percentage point or two).

DoJ crime stats were quoted in Scientific American in an article on "stranger murder" that appeared about 1994. The DoJ stats attributed 25% of non-black victims' murders to persons of "unknown" racial affinity -- which was a euphemism for "unidentified blacks", by comparison with adjacent violent-crime rates of a similar nature (armed robbery, aggravated assault, etc.). Rape patterns were slightly different, but blacks still showed a pattern of out-group predation.

For several years, young black men supplied something like 75% of all murderers, and more than half of all rapists.

Abraham Lincoln foresaw this disharmony and unhappiness; hence his interest in the colonization movement until the last day of his life. When he died, he had Gen. Daniel Sickles (of the Wheat Field at Gettysburg) in Panama, exploring the possibilities of building a canal there.

Lincoln wanted to use emancipated slaves, about 2,000,000 in all, to build the Panama Canal -- and then leave them there when the canal had been completed. That would have been somewhat less than half of all the slaves then living. He was doubtful of the proposition that whites and emancipated blacks could co-exist. Neither were the Radicals who inherited Reconstruction; which was why they insisted that ex-slaves remain in the South and not be allowed to migrate to the North.

[lentulusgracchus]

Look at all the high profile cases. Charles Manson, Jeffery Dahmer, Andrea Yates, Gary Ridgeway, David Berkowitz, Ted Bundy and Henry Lee Lucas. These cases got a lot of attention, unlike others.

Colin Ferguson's mass murder, targeting white commuters, on a New York subway was treated in the press as a case of "lax gun laws" and availability of firearms -- which was about a 90-degree left turn and spin by New York media. It launched a congresswoman's career -- based on gun-control crusading.

The conceit that Ferguson would not have gone on his white-killing spree if only guns had been still harder to obtain than in New York City, beggars credulity. So does the fact that this widow is still in Congress nearly 20 years later, still talking about guns.

[Theoria]

'During the late 80's and early 90's (the crack-wars crime wave) blacks were killing almost 50% of all white victims and about 91% of all black victims (the black-on-black crime rate is about the same today, hasn't changed by more than a percentage point or two).'

That might have been the case. And what did white's do? They obviously went to the suburbs. They left the inner cities.

I remember reading something Sherman once said, basically 'he' had to kill two hundred thousand or so rebs, for their own good, to save them.

Things come in cycles, at the turn of the 20th century, America was being divided with immigrant crimes. Unfortunately, the Gov't has divided so many people that things will fall apart when the goal is to bring everyone down.

[lentulusgracchus]

What does standout as the MOST GLARING statistic is that Black on White "stranger" homicides have consistently be multiples higher than White on Black "stranger" homicides.

The presentation of the data also tends to trivialize the numbers of victims of either race, by comparing the number of particular assailants (white strangers, white acquaintances) to the total number of victims. The percentages of assailing categories do not add up to 100% in either graph. Thus the denominator is inflated in both graphs, compared to the numerator.

A better way of looking at the data is by racial category of the victim, and by the race of the assailant(s), and by using pie-charts or other equal-area visual representations. The data presented here, insofar as they are true, nevertheless do not convey the full impact of the information it is desired to know: Who is doing these murders?

[lentulusgracchus]

That might have been the case. And what did white's do? They obviously went to the suburbs. They left the inner cities.

Well, that conflates white response with another social trend that began before WW II, suburbanization, but your point is taken, and I noticed when I was reading The Making of the President 1964 that Theodore White had to devote quite a lot of space to the phenomenon of "blockbusting" and black crime, and also rioting. That was the year that there were, for the first time, some serious disturbances that became the 60's race riots.

I think a case could be made that crime was only a part of white flight, and that black political control (and the white surmise that nothing would henceforth be done about either "black crime" or encroachment against white living spaces, with black politicians protecting the offenders) was the key, as in Detroit, to white abandonment of some cities. This didn't happen in Chicago or even New Orleans, n/w/s that both cities had and have corrupt political regimes. The New Orleans political regime has been exclusively black and overtly racist since the mid-70's; no white can get elected to citywide office, and the last white councilmember to question the corrupt appropriations of Marc Morial had ghetto blacks from the project bussed into her district to vote her corruptly out of office.