We Don't Have a Gun Problem, We Have a Black Problem

I ju

I just told you.

 

We already do so for men with things like spousal abuse and we already punish certain groups for engaging in activities that are more likely within the confines of their groups.

 

Which would be a direct violation of an American Citizen's rights according to the Constitution and the Supreme Court. Asinine solution on your part.

 

And we already have special laws that BENEFIT blacks and non-whites at the detriment of whites. If those are constitutional then how is the opposite not constitutional?

 

But... it's the truth.

 

So you believe laws specifically set that allow for harsher sentences based on race would be constitutional? I just want to be clear that you think we could do this solution now without changing the constitution.

 

Really? Is it unconstitutional to have government programs that are explicitly racist towards whites? Because we have several of those on the books.

 

Dammit! I was looking for some statistics to compare Canada to USA in ethnicity with crime and got this: "Although crime statistics on the basis of ethnicity are allegedly not collected by any major government department in Canada, this graph from the U.S. (where the BLM movement originated) looks at 22 types of offenses."


I thought this could've been a potential introspective provocation for US citizens, as Canadians get hypnotized so much by American TV they forget which country they live sometimes.

http://www.eurocanadian.ca/2016/04/the-statistics-oppose-black-lives-matter.html

:EDIT:

The graph is unimportant; I should have cut my quote short with an ellipsis.

 

You're after a specific type of offender though. Since, for example, non blacks commit 67% of rapes, you'd have us not focus on non blacks because of some population stat.

 

If we have special laws that benefit one race and are explicitly racist towards whites then why would this be unconstitutional?

 

Would you care to explain what an "evolutionary trait" is? You mean like being disadvantaged because of your skin colour and your traits evolving by evolutionary means to make you seek crime as "the way out" of your misery? Is that what you mean?

 

Do you know what strict scrutiny and compelling interest is? Please make your case for the constitutionality of these laws you suggest

 

Because laws must pass strict scrutiny. Now make your strict scrutiny case

 

You can't eliminate crime. That is impossible. What you can do is curb it. And you're not going to curb it to nothing. You hope to curb it to march a generalized population number. Which is what needs to be done here.

 

At least you're open about your racism, though your profile pic says everything I need to know about you.

Only problem is the justice system already beat you to the punch by treating blacks and minorities worse than other people.

 

Clearly we need to start with poor males.....the most dangerous group in this country

 

The EXACT same way we have laws and government programs that explicitly discriminate against white people such as minority grants for small businesses. The same way we have laws that are explicitly discriminatory against whites by providing minoriti... excuse me... non-whites an advantage in government contracting.

 

This means blacks, 12.4% of the population, commit 33% of rapes.
Why should we not focus on blacks?

 

Except they don't. They don't get more sentencing because of that. They get stricter sentencing because they're more likely to commit their crime with a gun, more likely to have prior records and FAR less likely to hire an attorney.

 

So black Americans have special laws that state that they are forgiven for violent crimes that white Americans are convicted of ... that would be special, if they existed. Remember, your thread is about violent crime.

 

Statistics are useful if you know HOW to use them. For example: Red cars are over-represented in traffic collisions by about 60% (I made that figure up) so if we stop producing red cars we will have 60% fewer road accidents. Right?

 

It takes months to equal what one guy did in mere minutes in Vegas, or other places where people don't expect to get shot, and with increasing frequency.

 

Poverty and exclusion? You know, social realities beyond skin pigmentation.

 

Yes it is. However he's asking me why that should be constitutional. I pointed out that we ALREADY have laws on the books that are explicitly racist towards whites. If those are constitutional then why wouldn't these be?

Is it okay to discriminate against whites in the constitution? Because I must have missed that part.

 

You do not understand strict scrutiny. Thanks