Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

OneTenthofOnePercent

(6,268 posts)
5. Sure they can... it's called life insurance.
Fri Jun 15, 2012, 10:55 AM
Jun 2012

The irony about the "guns affect black people disproportionately" argument is that a majority of the gun crime against black people is committed by... black people.

All Homicide Victims: White-50.9%, Black-46.9%
All Homicide Offenders: White-45.8%, Black-52.2%
Gun Homicide Victims: White-47.2%, Black-50.9%
Gun Homicide Offenders: White-41.9%, Black-56.4%

Furthermore, the relationship between a murderer and victim is by and large very likely to be intraracial (ie: black-on-black or white-on-white violence). As per the DOJ, From 1976 to 2005, 86% of white victims were killed by whites and 94% of black victims were killed by blacks. IMO, statistics would seem indicate that if anyone might need to use self defense and the CD/SYG laws offering protections to such users - it is black persons.

The point I'm illustrating is this: Making up a minority of the population, blacks comprise a disproportionate amount of homicide victims. Furthermore when a black person is gunned down, it is almost always another black person pulling the trigger. This would tend to indicate that the SYG laws, given qualifying prerequisites, more often tend to offer an affirmative defense to a Black shooter - especially if the person shot was also black.


For interracial acquittal situations which you illustrate in your post, I would say that it's not the SYG laws that are the problem... it's the racist culture of the persons enforcing the law. SYG laws apply to everyone equally regardless of race. If the law is applied in a racially disproportionate manner, then the problem rests not with the law but the persons upholding it. IMO, that is not a good reason to get rid of a law designed to protect victims of assault.
For example, as Americans we have the right to be protected from illegal search and seizure. However black persons are far more commonly the victims of racial profiling and illegal search/seizure by police. This does not mean that we should throw away search and seizure laws due to racial disparity in application... instead we should demand punishment levied against racist authorities. SYG is no different.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Previously posted on Wednesday ProgressiveProfessor Jun 2012 #1
Post removed Post removed Jun 2012 #12
Hyperbole and factually incorrect. OneTenthofOnePercent Jun 2012 #2
You've misunderstood this cartoon. EOTE Jun 2012 #3
Sure they can... it's called life insurance. OneTenthofOnePercent Jun 2012 #5
Way to throw out non-sequitors there. EOTE Jun 2012 #6
In your case of black-on-white homicide, SYG is likely beneficial. OneTenthofOnePercent Jun 2012 #8
No, it certainly is not. EOTE Jun 2012 #10
It sounds as if the problem rests with the police... not the law. OneTenthofOnePercent Jun 2012 #11
Nitpick at trivial nothings, much? 99Forever Jun 2012 #4
Well, they tend to not look at facts Ichingcarpenter Jun 2012 #13
It's a cartoon.. 99Forever Jun 2012 #14
I think that hyperbole is part and parcel of both humor and satire LanternWaste Jun 2012 #7
In the words of White Goodman.... OneTenthofOnePercent Jun 2012 #9
K & R !!! WillyT Jun 2012 #15
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Is Shooting people causin...»Reply #5