11-21-2021, 02:59 PM
(11-21-2021, 02:06 PM)jj22 Wrote: **unarmed. That is what you guys leave out when you talk just black males (and teens) killed vs white males killed. Yes the numbers are close when going with armed people. I'm not disagreeing with any of that.
You haven't cited any numbers whatsoever. Also, the term "unarmed" is thrown around like it means you automatically should not have been shot. An unarmed man who grapples a LEO and attempts to choke them out or otherwise incapacitate them is "unarmed" but damn sure deserves to be shot. People equate unarmed =/= no threat, which is patently absurd. Significantly more people are killed every year with fists and feet than with rifles of any kind. But don't take my word for it, read the FBI's UCR.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls
Since 2015 3,346 have been killed with hands/feet. In that same time period 1,573 were killed with rifles (including AR's) of any type. The year the numbers were closest, 2019, hands and feet still were used to kill 236 more people than rifles of any kind.
Now, am I saying a person armed with a rifle is less of a potential deadly threat than an "unarmed" person? Absolutely not, that's stupid and I despair that I even have to point that out. But it does show that unarmed is not analogous to no lethal threat. But you don't have to take my word for it, the numbers don't lie.
