Tuesday, May 24, 2016
They Just Don't Get It
Here is a pretty long piece in the NYT about gun violence. There are a few very stupid things contained in it (which I'll get to) but the major flaw is that the journalist are blaming us non-journalist, everyday citizens for what the journalists in general are doing. Let's start with that.
The article is titled "A Drumbeat of Multiple Shootings but America Isn't Listening." The NYT analyzed 358 shootings in 2015 where the shootings had 4 or more casualties. Here is the money quote:
Yeah, it's us racist jerks who don't care about black homicides, who are not outraged by the carnage wrought by 12.6% of our population. Whites are 72.4% of the population and it's all their fault that no one cares about the inordinate number of black murderers and black murder victims. I'm just channeling here the feelings expressed by the writers of the piece, I don't actually believe we are uncaring. I know I care a great deal about black murder victims, all murder victims. I believe there is a different explanation for the alleged lack of outrage about the numbers of black murder victims and murderers.
The real reason is that the press rarely covers most black murders. Sometimes, when the murderer is white, or a child is involved as either victim or murderer, there is some coverage by the news, but rarely when it's quotidian black on black murders. Why is that?
I suggest that the journalist don't cover quotidian black on black murders because the number of such murders do not put the black community in a very good light.
Let's look at the FBI stats from 2014. There were 11,961 murders that year and 8,124 were from firearms (5,562 by handguns, 248 by rifles and 262 by shotgun). Here are the racial breakdowns where the race of the perpetrator was known. Like most activities, the bulk of murders are committed by a person of the same race as the victim.
Of the 3,021 white murder victims (not just by guns) 2,488 were killed by white murderers and 446 by black murderers. That's 82.3% white on white murder and 14.7% black on white murder.
Of the 2,451 black murder victims, 2,205 were by black murderers and 187 by white murderers. That's 89.96% black on black murder and 7.5% white on black murder.
So that's not completely awful in a dispassionate, relative way. Blacks murdered whites at a rate nearly twice that of whites murdering blacks, but the numbers of murders across racial lines are pretty small. Likewise black on black murder was nearly 90% while it was only 82.3% with whites. I can't see any useful data in those last two statistics.
The bad news is the rate of murders by the race of the perpetrator per representation in the general populace. That statistic ain't so good for the black community.
The rate of white murderers per 100,000 white citizens is 1.1. The rate of black murderers per 100,000 of black citizens is 5.6, that is, roughly five times higher than for whites. Put another way, blacks are responsible for nearly as many murders as whites (2651 versus 2676) but blacks are only about 1/6th as numerous as whites. If I were a bleeding heart rather than a logical mind, I'd not want to trumpet those statistics. I don't talk about them here because I delight in showing the black community penchant for violence and murder. I'm only bringing it up because the journalists implied often in the article that us whites are not outraged because we are racist or uncaring about black victims or both. The number of white cops shooting black victims which amount to murder or manslaughter is tiny compared to the slaughter in the black neighborhoods. But if a black is shot by a cop, even when it is fully justified, the members of the community where it took place are wholly outraged. They riot. They start movements like (Only) Black Lives Matter. There appears to be nothing of this for the everyday murders in the same neighborhoods. Are the other blacks not outraged when a young black man shoots a 6 year old or a baby? I can't believe they are not, but I'm just as sure their outrage is not covered by the press in just the opposite way the press covers a young black man killed by a white cop. But we non-murdering whites are the problem, were the ones indifferent to the suffering of all the victims of murder.
No. No sale. The journalists calling us indifferent and racist are the ones not covering the daily multiple murders of young black men by other young black men. Apparently they are unaware that they are doing just what they complain wrongly that non-journalist whites are doing. They just don't see it. They just don't get it. There is none so blind as he who will not see.
Now to the other stupid stuff.
The NUT evaluation of the 4 or more casualty shootings in 2014 revealed "how easily lives are shattered when a firearm is readily available -- in a waistband, a glove compartment, a mailbox or garbage can that serves as a gang's gun locker." Oh, right, of course it is the availability of guns which causes the murders, not the murderous heart of the murderer. If we took away as many guns as possible, there would be no problems with multiple shooting deaths and injuries. It's the guns' fault for being available. Of course disarming the law abiding and not the criminals would not cause any problems whatsoever. Right?
Also as they are wont to do, the journalists' estimate of gun murders in America each year is far in excess of the figures from the FBI. The article says 11,000 die each year from gunshots. The FBI says that is about the number of all murder victims and only 8,124 are from firearms. Strange that the journalists would get it wrong and thereby exaggerated the problem. I'm sure it's an honest mistake.
The article is titled "A Drumbeat of Multiple Shootings but America Isn't Listening." The NYT analyzed 358 shootings in 2015 where the shootings had 4 or more casualties. Here is the money quote:
Over all, though, nearly three-fourths of victims and suspected assailants whose race could be identified were black. Some experts suggest that helps explain why the drumbeat of dead and wounded does not inspire more outrage.
Yeah, it's us racist jerks who don't care about black homicides, who are not outraged by the carnage wrought by 12.6% of our population. Whites are 72.4% of the population and it's all their fault that no one cares about the inordinate number of black murderers and black murder victims. I'm just channeling here the feelings expressed by the writers of the piece, I don't actually believe we are uncaring. I know I care a great deal about black murder victims, all murder victims. I believe there is a different explanation for the alleged lack of outrage about the numbers of black murder victims and murderers.
The real reason is that the press rarely covers most black murders. Sometimes, when the murderer is white, or a child is involved as either victim or murderer, there is some coverage by the news, but rarely when it's quotidian black on black murders. Why is that?
I suggest that the journalist don't cover quotidian black on black murders because the number of such murders do not put the black community in a very good light.
Let's look at the FBI stats from 2014. There were 11,961 murders that year and 8,124 were from firearms (5,562 by handguns, 248 by rifles and 262 by shotgun). Here are the racial breakdowns where the race of the perpetrator was known. Like most activities, the bulk of murders are committed by a person of the same race as the victim.
Of the 3,021 white murder victims (not just by guns) 2,488 were killed by white murderers and 446 by black murderers. That's 82.3% white on white murder and 14.7% black on white murder.
Of the 2,451 black murder victims, 2,205 were by black murderers and 187 by white murderers. That's 89.96% black on black murder and 7.5% white on black murder.
So that's not completely awful in a dispassionate, relative way. Blacks murdered whites at a rate nearly twice that of whites murdering blacks, but the numbers of murders across racial lines are pretty small. Likewise black on black murder was nearly 90% while it was only 82.3% with whites. I can't see any useful data in those last two statistics.
The bad news is the rate of murders by the race of the perpetrator per representation in the general populace. That statistic ain't so good for the black community.
The rate of white murderers per 100,000 white citizens is 1.1. The rate of black murderers per 100,000 of black citizens is 5.6, that is, roughly five times higher than for whites. Put another way, blacks are responsible for nearly as many murders as whites (2651 versus 2676) but blacks are only about 1/6th as numerous as whites. If I were a bleeding heart rather than a logical mind, I'd not want to trumpet those statistics. I don't talk about them here because I delight in showing the black community penchant for violence and murder. I'm only bringing it up because the journalists implied often in the article that us whites are not outraged because we are racist or uncaring about black victims or both. The number of white cops shooting black victims which amount to murder or manslaughter is tiny compared to the slaughter in the black neighborhoods. But if a black is shot by a cop, even when it is fully justified, the members of the community where it took place are wholly outraged. They riot. They start movements like (Only) Black Lives Matter. There appears to be nothing of this for the everyday murders in the same neighborhoods. Are the other blacks not outraged when a young black man shoots a 6 year old or a baby? I can't believe they are not, but I'm just as sure their outrage is not covered by the press in just the opposite way the press covers a young black man killed by a white cop. But we non-murdering whites are the problem, were the ones indifferent to the suffering of all the victims of murder.
No. No sale. The journalists calling us indifferent and racist are the ones not covering the daily multiple murders of young black men by other young black men. Apparently they are unaware that they are doing just what they complain wrongly that non-journalist whites are doing. They just don't see it. They just don't get it. There is none so blind as he who will not see.
Now to the other stupid stuff.
The NUT evaluation of the 4 or more casualty shootings in 2014 revealed "how easily lives are shattered when a firearm is readily available -- in a waistband, a glove compartment, a mailbox or garbage can that serves as a gang's gun locker." Oh, right, of course it is the availability of guns which causes the murders, not the murderous heart of the murderer. If we took away as many guns as possible, there would be no problems with multiple shooting deaths and injuries. It's the guns' fault for being available. Of course disarming the law abiding and not the criminals would not cause any problems whatsoever. Right?
Also as they are wont to do, the journalists' estimate of gun murders in America each year is far in excess of the figures from the FBI. The article says 11,000 die each year from gunshots. The FBI says that is about the number of all murder victims and only 8,124 are from firearms. Strange that the journalists would get it wrong and thereby exaggerated the problem. I'm sure it's an honest mistake.
Labels: Missing the Point; Submerging Black on Black Murder Coverage, NYT
Tuesday, February 04, 2014
Not Telling Us What We Already Know
When liberals are a little shaky on the logic and common sense elements of their arguments they often resort to an appeal to emotion, as in "Well, what if it were your child...?" That injection of emotion often satisfies the liberal but I think it does nothing to make their argument more persuasive. This unsigned editorial in the ever more execrable NYT offers the same trick appeal to emotion--it's for the children. What it really does, if you actually read the linked study, is confirm what everyone who ever watched the wonderful, terrible series The Wire, already knew.
The editorial, about gun control, leads off with Newtown, which apparently is part of the media style sheet now.
Gunshot wounds to ages 0-4, 175
Gunshot wounds to ages 5-9, 205
Gunshot wounds to ages 10-14, 699
Gunshot wounds to ages 15-19, 6,201
Oh, so the full adults and older teens are receiving six times the bullet wounds as all the real children, from birth through age 14, combined. Tragic, but not that surprising.
Black Americans aged 15-19 are 13 times more likely to be shot than white Americans of the same age sample.
So we have a problem of older teen and young adult blacks shooting each other in Democrat run cities over the illegal drug trade.
True that, as Omar would say.
But that's not how the liberal press sees it.
Limiting magazine size just makes the shooter change out magazines, in a few seconds, more often. Since this age group cannot legally obtain handguns under any circumstances, broadening or toughening the backround check system will also do nothing about this problem.
So the whole point of this seems to be an emotional cry to do something about children being shot even though most of the children are actually adults and there is nothing left to do legislatively. This is what passes for journalism in the liberal bubble.
Far less noticed but no less horrific is the unending toll from the more routine bursts of gunfire that each day send an average of 20 American children and adolescents to hospitals, many of them for long-term treatment.
Notice that the editorial lumps together 19 year olds with toddlers, as if the toddlers suffered the same sort of gun casualty as the full adults aged 18 and 19. If you follow the link to the Pediatric study, this is what you find about gunshot wounds in 2009.This grim statistic is found in a new study that focuses on the lasting damage suffered by young victims who survive. Of 7,391 hospitalizations of youths ages 19 and under shot in 2009, 6 percent ended in death; the rest joined the growing casualty list of gun victims, many needing lengthy and costly treatment, according to the study published in Pediatrics magazine. An estimated 3,000 additional youngsters died before reaching emergency rooms.
Gunshot wounds to ages 0-4, 175
Gunshot wounds to ages 5-9, 205
Gunshot wounds to ages 10-14, 699
Gunshot wounds to ages 15-19, 6,201
Oh, so the full adults and older teens are receiving six times the bullet wounds as all the real children, from birth through age 14, combined. Tragic, but not that surprising.
Black Americans aged 15-19 are 13 times more likely to be shot than white Americans of the same age sample.
So we have a problem of older teen and young adult blacks shooting each other in Democrat run cities over the illegal drug trade.
True that, as Omar would say.
But that's not how the liberal press sees it.
Where that old threat was external to America, the new threat is internal, spawned by the easy access to firearms that Congress refuses to adequately control.Handguns, which do almost all the wounding of these young men, are prohibited for those under 21. Does the NYT editorial board not know this? What is it that the liberals think that Congress can do that Congress and the states haven't already done? Banning gun possession is unconstitutional. Banning assault weapons, which are rarely used to commit gun mayhem, is not solving the problem.
Limiting magazine size just makes the shooter change out magazines, in a few seconds, more often. Since this age group cannot legally obtain handguns under any circumstances, broadening or toughening the backround check system will also do nothing about this problem.
So the whole point of this seems to be an emotional cry to do something about children being shot even though most of the children are actually adults and there is nothing left to do legislatively. This is what passes for journalism in the liberal bubble.
Labels: NYT, The Wire; Gun Carnage; Legislative Impotence
