Baltimore riots

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Danzig

More than half of births to American women younger than 30 are outside marriage, research has found.

And across all ages, a staggering four in ten women are not married when they have children.


The data shows the fastest growth in the past 20 years is among white women in their 20s with some college education but no four-year degree.



not sure, but it's no longer a race thing, since all demographics are seeing an increase in that statistic.
on the other hand, out of wedlock doesn't automatically mean 'no father'.
i'd think one of the biggest reasons for the change is more women are self sufficient, and no longer see marriage as a necessity, or a prerequisite for having children.

Good news..

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor...ou_d_know.html

But....perception is still reality for some:

But just because the unwed birth rate is going down doesn't mean that the panic over single motherhood is likely to recede. The majority of Americans believe crime is getting worse, but crime is actually way down since the ’90s. Most Americans also believe teen pregnancy is on the rise, when in fact it's in a sharp decline. So we'll probably continue to hear about how single mothers are responsible for every social ill imaginable.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Danzig

But just because the unwed birth rate is going down doesn't mean that the panic over single motherhood is likely to recede. The majority of Americans believe crime is getting worse, but crime is actually way down since the ’90s. Most Americans also believe teen pregnancy is on the rise, when in fact it's in a sharp decline. So we'll probably continue to hear about how single mothers are responsible for every social ill imaginable.

So true. Even when confronted with facts contradicting a position, it's very hard to get someone to change that position. Jonathan Swift put it best back in the 18th century: "It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

So true. Even when confronted with facts contradicting a position, it's very hard to get someone to change that position. Jonathan Swift put it best back in the 18th century: "It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."

i LOVE that quote, and reference it fairly often.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Danzig

Good news..

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor...ou_d_know.html

But....perception is still reality for some:

But just because the unwed birth rate is going down doesn't mean that the panic over single motherhood is likely to recede. The majority of Americans believe crime is getting worse, but crime is actually way down since the ’90s. Most Americans also believe teen pregnancy is on the rise, when in fact it's in a sharp decline. So we'll probably continue to hear about how single mothers are responsible for every social ill imaginable.

The overall, unwed birth rate (number of births) is down because the overall birth rate is down. This decrease is still reason to celebrate as statistically children born to unwed mothers bear virtually every disadvantage imaginable to their counterparts born into a marriage.

The percentage of births to unwed mothers remains steady at roughly 4 in 10. If only we could get that down to 1980 rates (20%) only 2 in 10 or less would be born into a disadvantageous life/future.

The percentage of births to unmarried women declined slightly in 2013 to 40.6%, after holding steady from 2011 to 2012 at 40.7%; the percentage peaked in 2009 at 41.0%.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db162.htm

So while overall births have declined the percentage of those births born to unwed mothers have decreased 9/10 of 1% or to be specific 0.0097561.

To give some perspective, that percentage transposed into a salary raise for someone making $15 bucks an hour would come to 14 and a half cents an hour or $5.85 a week. If that's good news, so be it.

[Rupert Pupkin]

I guess a new campaign should be started called White Lives Matter. The reason I say this is because the truth of the matter is that police kill more white people than black people. You are probably thinking that that is misleading because there are more white people than black people. But the truth of the matter is that even when you adjust for that, police still kill more white people than black people.

"Adjusted to take into account the racial breakdown of the U.S. population, he said black men are 3.5 times more likely to be killed by police than white men. But also adjusted to take into account the racial breakdown in violent crime, the data actually show that police are less likely to kill black suspects than white ones."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ty-d/?page=all

The bottom line (as the title of the article says) is that "Police kill more whites than blacks, but minority deaths generate more outrage."

[OldDog]

Well now, that's just plain racist talk.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I guess a new campaign should be started called White Lives Matter. The reason I say this is because the truth of the matter is that police kill more white people than black people. You are probably thinking that that is misleading because there are more white people than black people. But the truth of the matter is that even when you adjust for that, police still kill more white people than black people.

"Adjusted to take into account the racial breakdown of the U.S. population, he said black men are 3.5 times more likely to be killed by police than white men. But also adjusted to take into account the racial breakdown in violent crime, the data actually show that police are less likely to kill black suspects than white ones."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ty-d/?page=all

The bottom line (as the title of the article says) is that "Police kill more whites than blacks, but minority deaths generate more outrage."

All lives matter....ok, I will make exceptions for terrorists, a bullet in their brains I can accept. The issue should be whether the police are justified in the use of deadly force...in cases of self defense or defense of innocent others, I support the police. A meaningful comparison would be one that incorporates this detail, otherwise it's apples and oranges.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I guess a new campaign should be started called White Lives Matter. The reason I say this is because the truth of the matter is that police kill more white people than black people. You are probably thinking that that is misleading because there are more white people than black people. But the truth of the matter is that even when you adjust for that, police still kill more white people than black people.

"Adjusted to take into account the racial breakdown of the U.S. population, he said black men are 3.5 times more likely to be killed by police than white men. But also adjusted to take into account the racial breakdown in violent crime, the data actually show that police are less likely to kill black suspects than white ones."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ty-d/?page=all

The bottom line (as the title of the article says) is that "Police kill more whites than blacks, but minority deaths generate more outrage."

I'm not quite sure why they'd want to subcategorize for that, I'm not sure what that has to do with the spate of police violence on people committing no crime either. And the article also states, as has been known for some time, that no one actually knows how many shootings and killings there are by police, because no one tracks it.
The police must follow the law while enforcing it. That is regardless of who they encounter or their race.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

I'm not quite sure why they'd want to subcategorize for that, I'm not sure what that has to do with the spate of police violence on people committing no crime either. And the article also states, as has been known for some time, that no one actually knows how many shootings and killings there are by police, because no one tracks it.
The police must follow the law while enforcing it. That is regardless of who they encounter or their race.

They know exactly how many killing there are by police. Where does the article say that no one knows how many shooting and killings there are by police? The article says that the FBI data on police shooting by race is incomplete. But you don't need 100% complete data to do an accurate analysis. For example, when polls are done they don't poll 100% of the population. They may only poll 1-2% of the population and this will yield very good data as long as there was a true random sample.

With regard to your question about why they would be looking at the racial breakdown of violent crime, this would obviously be something that needs to be done to make a fair comparison. It is extremely rare that the police shoot an unarmed person who is not in a physical confrontation with them. It happens occasionally but it is very rare. Most of the cases in the news like the Michael Brown case involve some type of physical confrontation. The vast majority of police shooting involve violent criminals.

Hypothetically, let's say the police shoot 100 people. And let's say 50 of those are white, 40 are black and 10 are Asian. We would want to look at two different things. The first thing we would want to look at is what percentage of the population each group makes up. Let's say white people make up 60% of the population, blacks make up 15% of the population, and Asians make up 25% of the population. Then we would know that way more black are being shot percentage wise compared to other groups, even though more whites are being shot total. But we would need to look at one more thing. Since the vast majority of police shootings involve violent criminals, we would need to see the statistics on who is committing the violent crime. If blacks are committing 42% of the violent crime, then it would not be unusual if 40% of the people that police shoot are black.

Anyway, we are constantly being told by the civil rights leaders and the media that the police are killing more black people than white people. I think this study shows that this is complete BS. The study may not be perfect but it obviously has enough information to show that not only are more white being killed by police in terms of raw numbers, but more whites are being killed by police in terms of the percentages of violent criminals being killed by police.

I agree with you that the police need to follow the law. Nobody wants to see the police kill anyone (of any race), unless it is a last resort of self-defense. We have seen the police use excessive force and shoot people that should not have been shot. Nobody is denying that there have been cases of excessive force and cases of unjustified killings by police. We all know that. The question is whether the police are more likely to use deadly force against people of color. The civil rights leaders and the liberal news media would lead you to believe the answer is yes. But the evidence does not support this position.

[Danzig]

As researchers are quick to point out, FBI data on police shootings by race is notoriously incomplete,


That is from the article.

What does that mean? No agency, no database that can tell you the numbers.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

As researchers are quick to point out, FBI data on police shootings by race is notoriously incomplete,


That is from the article.

What does that mean? No agency, no database that can tell you the numbers.

I will repeat what I just said. "The article says that the FBI data on police shooting by race is incomplete. But you don't need 100% complete data to do an accurate analysis. For example, when polls are done, the pollsters don't poll 100% of the population. They may only poll 1-2% of the population and this will yield very good data, as long as there was a true random sample."

If you can get some pretty accurate information from a poll that only polls 1% of a population, then I think the numbers from the FBI (which are probably 80-90% complete) are probably pretty accurate. You don't need exact numbers to analyze data. If you have ballpark numbers, you are going to draw the same conclusions