|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On August 07 2018 02:48 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2018 02:24 superstartran wrote:
If an officer is not convicted it's counted as justified homicide. What? Legally justified homicide is not the same as justified homicide. In your own parking lot example, do you think that is a justified homicide? If you say anything that isn't a "no" ...
If the officer is not convicted of a crime, it's counted as a legally justified homicide. Whether it's morally justified is one thing. We're arguing whether police officers 'regularly shoot and kill people' since someone wants to bring that up as a point as to why firearms shouldn't exist in the U.S.
It's statistically false BTW no matter what data base you use.
On August 07 2018 02:48 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2018 02:24 superstartran wrote:
If an officer is not convicted it's counted as justified homicide. What? Legally justified homicide is not the same as justified homicide. In your own parking lot example, do you think that is a justified homicide? If you say anything that isn't a "no" ... Edit: Also 1000 incidents in a country of 300 million is an insane amount of homicides. You can't compare that to lightning strikes (unless you are comparing number of lightning strikes on a proportional per country bias. Who knows, maybe USA suffers 20 times more deaths from proportional lightning strikes than other developed countries.) I don't even understand...
Laughable. Most of you earlier said that knife statistics didn't constitute an epidemic but now you want to say that 1000 incidents in a country of 300 million people is somehow insane.
|
"We're arguing whether police officers 'regularly shoot and kill people'" - and... they do. 1000 killed in a population of 300 million by police in a year is an insane amount of people being killed by police in a modern developed country. I don't know why you don't think so.
"If the officer is not convicted of a crime, it's counted as a legally justified homicide." - which is an absolutely awful metric.
Proportionally the homicide rate in UK is vastly lower than USA.
Homicide by knife in USA is twice that of UK. Surely then it would be USA with the knife crime epidemic.
I have no idea why you are obsessed with knife crime, other than Trump said it.
Also, I don't know about you but I am pretty sure it's not the police who are knifing people.
|
On August 07 2018 02:48 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2018 02:24 superstartran wrote:
If an officer is not convicted it's counted as justified homicide. What? Legally justified homicide is not the same as justified homicide. In your own parking lot example, do you think that is a justified homicide? If you say anything that isn't a "no" ... Edit: Also 1000 incidents in a country of 300 million is an insane amount of homicides. You can't compare that to lightning strikes (unless you are comparing number of lightning strikes on a proportional per country bias. Who knows, maybe USA suffers 20 times more deaths from proportional lightning strikes than other developed countries.) I don't even understand...
As a comparison, 1000 deaths a year means one 9/11 every three years. Now if we take the US reaction to 9/11 as a guide on how to react proportionally, the only reasonable result would be to start a war on cops.
Now, no one is talking about such an absurd reaction. And i would also agree that the US reaction to terror has been anything but reasonable. But you can't really say that it is not worth at least maybe slightly looking into as a problem. I don't think that the US airforce should start doing drone strikes on police precincts. Just that maybe you should set up some sort of independent oversight agency and not let the colleagues of the people who shot others investigate that shooting. Maybe add some additional burden of proof beyond "I totally felt scared" to make a cop shooting a human being dead justified. Even just requiring a rational reason for that feeling of scaredness would be an improvement.
Just imagine if the same requirements were made to make people shooting cops innocent. "I felt threatened by that big cop with a gun, so i shot him dead!" "Oh okay, in that case you go free. You might get suspended with pay from your job for a few months though."
|
On August 07 2018 03:01 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
"We're arguing whether police officers 'regularly shoot and kill people'" - and... they do. 1000 killed in a population of 300 million by police in a year is an insane amount of people being killed by police in a modern developed country. I don't know why you don't think so.
"If the officer is not convicted of a crime, it's counted as a legally justified homicide." - which is an absolutely awful metric.
1000 incidents over 300 million does not constitute regularly. Statistically it's a blip. If I did the math right odds are at like 1 in 8000. You're more likely to die from a Tornado then being shot by a police officer. By every statistical metric no matter how you paint it, it does not happen regularly. No matter how you spin it.
On August 07 2018 03:05 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2018 02:48 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On August 07 2018 02:24 superstartran wrote:
If an officer is not convicted it's counted as justified homicide. What? Legally justified homicide is not the same as justified homicide. In your own parking lot example, do you think that is a justified homicide? If you say anything that isn't a "no" ... Edit: Also 1000 incidents in a country of 300 million is an insane amount of homicides. You can't compare that to lightning strikes (unless you are comparing number of lightning strikes on a proportional per country bias. Who knows, maybe USA suffers 20 times more deaths from proportional lightning strikes than other developed countries.) I don't even understand... As a comparison, 1000 deaths a year means one 9/11 every three years. Now if we take the US reaction to 9/11 as a guide on how to react proportionally, the only reasonable result would be to start a war on cops. Now, no one is talking about such an absurd reaction. And i would also agree that the US reaction to terror has been anything but reasonable. But you can't really say that it is not worth at least maybe slightly looking into as a problem. I don't think that the US airforce should start doing drone strikes on police precincts. Just that maybe you should set up some sort of independent oversight agency and not let the colleagues of the people who shot others investigate that shooting. Maybe add some additional burden of proof beyond "I totally felt scared" to make a cop shooting a human being dead justified. Even just requiring a rational reason for that feeling of scaredness would be an improvement. Just imagine if the same requirements were made to make people shooting cops innocent. "I felt threatened by that big cop with a gun, so i shot him dead!" "Oh okay, in that case you go free. You might get suspended with pay from your job for a few months though."
Do you consider 1000 incidents in 300 million regular or not? I am not arguing the morality of it, I am merely arguing whether it occurs frequently enough, and whether it is statistically significant enough where you can use it as justification as to why there needs to be more gun control. No where did I say police brutality doesn't exist, nor have I stated that police officers have never used excessive force. What I did state was that police officers do not by any statistical measure shoot people regularly. That's false, and you and I both know it.
|
On August 07 2018 03:06 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2018 03:01 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
"We're arguing whether police officers 'regularly shoot and kill people'" - and... they do. 1000 killed in a population of 300 million by police in a year is an insane amount of people being killed by police in a modern developed country. I don't know why you don't think so.
"If the officer is not convicted of a crime, it's counted as a legally justified homicide." - which is an absolutely awful metric. 1000 incidents over 300 million does not constitute regularly. Statistically it's a blip. If I did the math right odds are at like 1 in 8000. You're more likely to die from a Tornado then being shot by a police officer. By every statistical metric no matter how you paint it, it does not happen regularly. No matter how you spin it.
So, how scared are you of islamic terrorism? Because if we exclude 9/11 as an extraordinary event, there have been roughly 30 US deaths each year due to islamic terrorism in the last 20 years
http://www.start.umd.edu/pubs/START_AmericanTerrorismDeaths_FactSheet_Nov2017.pdf
That makes you about 30 times more likely to be killed by a cop than by islamic terrorism if we take that 1000 death/year number.
Even if we include 9/11, that still leaves you with less than 4000 US deaths in 20 years, or 200/year, still meaning that cops are 5 times more dangerous that islamic terrorists to you. And yet people constantly argue that the US reaction to terrorism is justified (starting two wars, drone striking people in the middle east for years, spying on everyone, torture camps etc...)
But 1000 deaths/year to cops is just a blip.
Also, "regularly" is not what you should be arguing about. If something happens once every 38 years, it still happens regularly. What you want to talk about is "often"
On August 07 2018 03:06 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2018 03:01 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
"We're arguing whether police officers 'regularly shoot and kill people'" - and... they do. 1000 killed in a population of 300 million by police in a year is an insane amount of people being killed by police in a modern developed country. I don't know why you don't think so.
"If the officer is not convicted of a crime, it's counted as a legally justified homicide." - which is an absolutely awful metric. 1000 incidents over 300 million does not constitute regularly. Statistically it's a blip. If I did the math right odds are at like 1 in 8000. You're more likely to die from a Tornado then being shot by a police officer. By every statistical metric no matter how you paint it, it does not happen regularly. No matter how you spin it. Show nested quote +On August 07 2018 03:05 Simberto wrote:On August 07 2018 02:48 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On August 07 2018 02:24 superstartran wrote:
If an officer is not convicted it's counted as justified homicide. What? Legally justified homicide is not the same as justified homicide. In your own parking lot example, do you think that is a justified homicide? If you say anything that isn't a "no" ... Edit: Also 1000 incidents in a country of 300 million is an insane amount of homicides. You can't compare that to lightning strikes (unless you are comparing number of lightning strikes on a proportional per country bias. Who knows, maybe USA suffers 20 times more deaths from proportional lightning strikes than other developed countries.) I don't even understand... As a comparison, 1000 deaths a year means one 9/11 every three years. Now if we take the US reaction to 9/11 as a guide on how to react proportionally, the only reasonable result would be to start a war on cops. Now, no one is talking about such an absurd reaction. And i would also agree that the US reaction to terror has been anything but reasonable. But you can't really say that it is not worth at least maybe slightly looking into as a problem. I don't think that the US airforce should start doing drone strikes on police precincts. Just that maybe you should set up some sort of independent oversight agency and not let the colleagues of the people who shot others investigate that shooting. Maybe add some additional burden of proof beyond "I totally felt scared" to make a cop shooting a human being dead justified. Even just requiring a rational reason for that feeling of scaredness would be an improvement. Just imagine if the same requirements were made to make people shooting cops innocent. "I felt threatened by that big cop with a gun, so i shot him dead!" "Oh okay, in that case you go free. You might get suspended with pay from your job for a few months though." Do you consider 1000 incidents in 300 million regular or not? I am not arguing the morality of it, I am merely arguing whether it occurs frequently enough, and whether it is statistically significant enough where you can use it as justification as to why there needs to be more gun control. No where did I say police brutality doesn't exist, nor have I stated that police officers have never used excessive force. What I did state was that police officers do not by any statistical measure shoot people regularly. That's false, and you and I both know it.
Your cops shoot people dead about 10-20 times as often as german cops (per capita of course). If people died in your cars 20 times as often as in a german car, you would be driving a german car.
As to "regularly", see above.
Edit: And i agree, police brutality is not a argument for gun control. I don't think anyone ever claimed that, though.
|
On August 07 2018 03:06 superstartran wrote:
1000 incidents over 300 million does not constitute regularly. Statistically it's a blip. If I did the math right odds are at like 1 in 8000. You're more likely to die from a Tornado then being shot by a police officer. By every statistical metric no matter how you paint it, it does not happen regularly. No matter how you spin it. There's only one metric that can be used and that is to compared death by cop by every other developed country. It is not a blip, no matter how you spin it. 1000 incidents over a pop of 300 million is insane. By comparison UK approaches 0, for a population of 60 million.
If 200 people (proportionally the same since superstartstrain can't do maths) died by police in the UK, there will be near constant riots in the streets.
|
On August 07 2018 03:15 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2018 03:06 superstartran wrote:On August 07 2018 03:01 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
"We're arguing whether police officers 'regularly shoot and kill people'" - and... they do. 1000 killed in a population of 300 million by police in a year is an insane amount of people being killed by police in a modern developed country. I don't know why you don't think so.
"If the officer is not convicted of a crime, it's counted as a legally justified homicide." - which is an absolutely awful metric. 1000 incidents over 300 million does not constitute regularly. Statistically it's a blip. If I did the math right odds are at like 1 in 8000. You're more likely to die from a Tornado then being shot by a police officer. By every statistical metric no matter how you paint it, it does not happen regularly. No matter how you spin it. So, how scared are you of islamic terrorism? Because if we exclude 9/11 as an extraordinary event, there have been roughly 30 US deaths each year due to islamic terrorism in the last 20 years http://www.start.umd.edu/pubs/START_AmericanTerrorismDeaths_FactSheet_Nov2017.pdfThat makes you about 30 times more likely to be killed by a cop than by islamic terrorism if we take that 1000 death/year number. Even if we include 9/11, that still leaves you with less than 4000 US deaths in 20 years, or 200/year, still meaning that cops are 5 times more dangerous that islamic terrorists to you. And yet people constantly argue that the US reaction to terrorism is justified (starting two wars, drone striking people in the middle east for years, spying on everyone, torture camps etc...) But 1000 deaths/year to cops is just a blip. Also, "regularly" is not what you should be arguing about. If something happens once every 38 years, it still happens regularly. What you want to talk about is "often" Show nested quote +On August 07 2018 03:06 superstartran wrote:On August 07 2018 03:01 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
"We're arguing whether police officers 'regularly shoot and kill people'" - and... they do. 1000 killed in a population of 300 million by police in a year is an insane amount of people being killed by police in a modern developed country. I don't know why you don't think so.
"If the officer is not convicted of a crime, it's counted as a legally justified homicide." - which is an absolutely awful metric. 1000 incidents over 300 million does not constitute regularly. Statistically it's a blip. If I did the math right odds are at like 1 in 8000. You're more likely to die from a Tornado then being shot by a police officer. By every statistical metric no matter how you paint it, it does not happen regularly. No matter how you spin it. On August 07 2018 03:05 Simberto wrote:On August 07 2018 02:48 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On August 07 2018 02:24 superstartran wrote:
If an officer is not convicted it's counted as justified homicide. What? Legally justified homicide is not the same as justified homicide. In your own parking lot example, do you think that is a justified homicide? If you say anything that isn't a "no" ... Edit: Also 1000 incidents in a country of 300 million is an insane amount of homicides. You can't compare that to lightning strikes (unless you are comparing number of lightning strikes on a proportional per country bias. Who knows, maybe USA suffers 20 times more deaths from proportional lightning strikes than other developed countries.) I don't even understand... As a comparison, 1000 deaths a year means one 9/11 every three years. Now if we take the US reaction to 9/11 as a guide on how to react proportionally, the only reasonable result would be to start a war on cops. Now, no one is talking about such an absurd reaction. And i would also agree that the US reaction to terror has been anything but reasonable. But you can't really say that it is not worth at least maybe slightly looking into as a problem. I don't think that the US airforce should start doing drone strikes on police precincts. Just that maybe you should set up some sort of independent oversight agency and not let the colleagues of the people who shot others investigate that shooting. Maybe add some additional burden of proof beyond "I totally felt scared" to make a cop shooting a human being dead justified. Even just requiring a rational reason for that feeling of scaredness would be an improvement. Just imagine if the same requirements were made to make people shooting cops innocent. "I felt threatened by that big cop with a gun, so i shot him dead!" "Oh okay, in that case you go free. You might get suspended with pay from your job for a few months though." Do you consider 1000 incidents in 300 million regular or not? I am not arguing the morality of it, I am merely arguing whether it occurs frequently enough, and whether it is statistically significant enough where you can use it as justification as to why there needs to be more gun control. No where did I say police brutality doesn't exist, nor have I stated that police officers have never used excessive force. What I did state was that police officers do not by any statistical measure shoot people regularly. That's false, and you and I both know it. Your cops shoot people dead about 10-20 times as often as german cops. If people died in your cars 20 times as often as in a german car, you would be driving a german car. As to "regularly", see above.
Terrorism statistics have nothing to do with the argument.
Is 1000 incidents among 300 million people prevalent? Often? Frequent? How many more ways do I have to ask this? I don't care about the morality of the argument, I want to know whether you think it is frequent or not. The original statement was that 'police officers regularly kill people all the time in the United States' (paraphrase). I would easily infer from that the OP implied that police officers frequently shoot people all the time and kill them, and states that as a reason as to why we need more strict gun control.
That is statistically false, and you know it.
On August 07 2018 03:17 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2018 03:06 superstartran wrote:
1000 incidents over 300 million does not constitute regularly. Statistically it's a blip. If I did the math right odds are at like 1 in 8000. You're more likely to die from a Tornado then being shot by a police officer. By every statistical metric no matter how you paint it, it does not happen regularly. No matter how you spin it. There's only one metric that can be used and that is to compared death by cop by every other developed country. It is not a blip, no matter how you spin it. 1000 incidents over a pop of 300 million is insane. By comparison UK approaches 0, for a population of 60 million. If 200 people (proportionally the same since superstartstrain can't do maths) died by police in the UK, there will be near constant riots in the streets.
There are give or take 40,000 incidents involving knives in the U.K., I guess by your metric I'm allowed to say that's a knifing epidemic right?
|
Having three people being shot by cops every day on average is pretty gross. The metric cant be the same for all things: having between 1 and 2 mass shootings every day in a country is not "statistically relevant" by your argument, so who cares, yet in other developed countries its practically unheard of - and its these you should compare with.
|
On August 07 2018 03:29 shabby wrote:
Having three people being shot by cops every day on average is pretty gross. The metric cant be the same for all things: having between 1 and 2 mass shootings every day in a country is not "statistically relevant" by your argument, so who cares, yet in other developed countries its practically unheard of - and its these you should compare with.
Solving issues require you to look at evidence from an empirical standpoint. Stating that police officers kill people frequently would be statistically false. No where have I stated that there isn't a problem, rather the problem is not quite as large as made out to be.
|
You do realize that there is a difference between "Person killed" and "stuff happened that involved a knife". For something to register as happening often enough to be important, it is relevant how important the thing itself is.
A person being killed is important. It does not have to happen every day (Though police killing people does seem to happen three times a day on average). Here, the reasonable way to access the data is by comparing it to other, similar data. Like how often the police in other (developed) countries kill people. And that is a lot less often than in the US. So yes, in that context would i count the US police killing 1000 people/year as "often" because it happens much more frequently than in other superficially similar countries. If you of course talk about a comparison regarding to total causes of death, than you should probably only ever care about heart disease and possibly cancer, because anything else is utterly dwarfed by those two.
Why do terrorism statistics not have anything to do with the question? We are trying to compare people being killed on purpose by people belonging to specific groups, and the reasonable reaction to those deaths. I grabbed terrorism because that was the first thing that sprang to my mind as a crass overreaction that is apparently fine with a lot of people.
|
On August 07 2018 03:37 Simberto wrote:
You do realize that there is a difference between "Person killed" and "stuff happened that involved a knife". For something to register as happening often enough to be important, it is relevant how important the thing itself is.
A person being killed is important. It does not have to happen every day (Though police killing people does seem to happen three times a day on average). Here, the reasonable way to access the data is by comparing it to other, similar data. Like how often the police in other (developed) countries kill people. And that is a lot less often than in the US. So yes, in that context would i count the US police killing 1000 people/year as "often" because it happens much more frequently than in other superficially similar countries. If you of course talk about a comparison regarding to total causes of death, than you should probably only ever care about heart disease and possibly cancer, because anything else is utterly dwarfed by those two.
Why do terrorism statistics not have anything to do with the question? We are trying to compare people being killed on purpose by people belonging to specific groups, and the reasonable reaction to those deaths. I grabbed terrorism because that was the first thing that sprang to my mind as a crass overreaction that is apparently fine with a lot of people.
About 700-800ish people die from bicycle accidents a year, I guess we should start cracking down hard on bicycles.
36,000 people die from the Flu every year in the U.S., not one single person bats an eye.
But because it's 'guns and the police' people want to sensationalize the 1000 number as though it is so significant, rampant, and so outrageous. Give me a fucking break.
|
On August 07 2018 03:21 superstartran wrote:There are give or take 40,000 incidents involving knives in the U.K., I guess by your metric I'm allowed to say that's a knifing epidemic right?
Superstarttran, do you literally don't understand the difference between a homicide and an incident?
___
Anyways, twice as many people proportionally die from knives in the USA. If UK has a knifing epidemic, which you only come to that conclusion becuase Trump told you, so it must be true, then the USA has double the knifing epidemic.
I feel like I am arguing with an insane person here.
|
I just want to point out that no one collects comprehensive data on the use of lethal force by the police. Many police departments do not report it or keep records. 1000 per year could be accurate or well below the true number.
And I don't want to be one of those 1000 people. More importantly, I don't want anyone I know to be shot by a dumb ass cop who gets scared for a minute.
|
Ah, i see. So you only care about heart disease and cancer, since nothing else is ever worth talking about.
Also, you ignore literally everything i wrote to continue on your "its not that large of a number" rant.
Edit: Also, again, i do not think that police brutality is a reason for gun control. There are lots of good reasons for gun control, this is not one of them. But it is bad on its own.
|
|
|
On August 07 2018 03:40 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2018 03:37 Simberto wrote:
You do realize that there is a difference between "Person killed" and "stuff happened that involved a knife". For something to register as happening often enough to be important, it is relevant how important the thing itself is.
A person being killed is important. It does not have to happen every day (Though police killing people does seem to happen three times a day on average). Here, the reasonable way to access the data is by comparing it to other, similar data. Like how often the police in other (developed) countries kill people. And that is a lot less often than in the US. So yes, in that context would i count the US police killing 1000 people/year as "often" because it happens much more frequently than in other superficially similar countries. If you of course talk about a comparison regarding to total causes of death, than you should probably only ever care about heart disease and possibly cancer, because anything else is utterly dwarfed by those two.
Why do terrorism statistics not have anything to do with the question? We are trying to compare people being killed on purpose by people belonging to specific groups, and the reasonable reaction to those deaths. I grabbed terrorism because that was the first thing that sprang to my mind as a crass overreaction that is apparently fine with a lot of people. About 700-800ish people die from bicycle accidents a year, I guess we should start cracking down hard on bicycles. 36,000 people die from the Flu every year in the U.S., not one single person bats an eye. But because it's 'guns and the police' people want to sensationalize the 1000 number as though it is so significant, rampant, and so outrageous. Give me a fucking break.
Dude. You can throw whatever comparative stats you want into the discussion, the broader discussion point is that people are getting shot and killed by police. It's a problem!
I don't get why you are saying otherwise.
|
United States43219 Posts
On August 07 2018 03:40 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2018 03:37 Simberto wrote:
You do realize that there is a difference between "Person killed" and "stuff happened that involved a knife". For something to register as happening often enough to be important, it is relevant how important the thing itself is.
A person being killed is important. It does not have to happen every day (Though police killing people does seem to happen three times a day on average). Here, the reasonable way to access the data is by comparing it to other, similar data. Like how often the police in other (developed) countries kill people. And that is a lot less often than in the US. So yes, in that context would i count the US police killing 1000 people/year as "often" because it happens much more frequently than in other superficially similar countries. If you of course talk about a comparison regarding to total causes of death, than you should probably only ever care about heart disease and possibly cancer, because anything else is utterly dwarfed by those two.
Why do terrorism statistics not have anything to do with the question? We are trying to compare people being killed on purpose by people belonging to specific groups, and the reasonable reaction to those deaths. I grabbed terrorism because that was the first thing that sprang to my mind as a crass overreaction that is apparently fine with a lot of people. About 700-800ish people die from bicycle accidents a year, I guess we should start cracking down hard on bicycles. 36,000 people die from the Flu every year in the U.S., not one single person bats an eye. But because it's 'guns and the police' people want to sensationalize the 1000 number as though it is so significant, rampant, and so outrageous. Give me a fucking break.
You’re aware of just how much money is spent on fighting the flu each year, right? If police brutality could reach flu levels of response that’d be huge.
|
We also crack down hard on people killing cyclists. Proportionally there are many more people cycling in the UK than in the USA, but proportionally less deaths. I guess superstartstran has no idea how much money and legislation there is to reduce cyclist deaths in the UK.
There are bike paths being built, education camapaigns, and near constant national TV adverts. You instantly fail your driving exam if you overtake a bicycle without going to the other side of the road. For the cyclist themselves there are laws regulating their use and you can even get fined for dangerous cycling. If only the US spends as much effort, money and legislation as UK does on cycling safety, as on effective gun legislation and combating police brutality.
|
On August 07 2018 03:49 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2018 03:40 superstartran wrote:On August 07 2018 03:37 Simberto wrote:
You do realize that there is a difference between "Person killed" and "stuff happened that involved a knife". For something to register as happening often enough to be important, it is relevant how important the thing itself is.
A person being killed is important. It does not have to happen every day (Though police killing people does seem to happen three times a day on average). Here, the reasonable way to access the data is by comparing it to other, similar data. Like how often the police in other (developed) countries kill people. And that is a lot less often than in the US. So yes, in that context would i count the US police killing 1000 people/year as "often" because it happens much more frequently than in other superficially similar countries. If you of course talk about a comparison regarding to total causes of death, than you should probably only ever care about heart disease and possibly cancer, because anything else is utterly dwarfed by those two.
Why do terrorism statistics not have anything to do with the question? We are trying to compare people being killed on purpose by people belonging to specific groups, and the reasonable reaction to those deaths. I grabbed terrorism because that was the first thing that sprang to my mind as a crass overreaction that is apparently fine with a lot of people. About 700-800ish people die from bicycle accidents a year, I guess we should start cracking down hard on bicycles. 36,000 people die from the Flu every year in the U.S., not one single person bats an eye. But because it's 'guns and the police' people want to sensationalize the 1000 number as though it is so significant, rampant, and so outrageous. Give me a fucking break. You’re aware of just how much money is spent on fighting the flu each year, right? If police brutality could reach flu levels of response that’d be huge.
Hell, disarming (taking the guns away from) the police would be cheaper and solve the problem of them shooting people. Coincidentally it would also make them strong advocates of civilian gun control laws.
|
On August 07 2018 03:33 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2018 03:29 shabby wrote:
Having three people being shot by cops every day on average is pretty gross. The metric cant be the same for all things: having between 1 and 2 mass shootings every day in a country is not "statistically relevant" by your argument, so who cares, yet in other developed countries its practically unheard of - and its these you should compare with. Solving issues require you to look at evidence from an empirical standpoint. Stating that police officers kill people frequently would be statistically false. No where have I stated that there isn't a problem, rather the problem is not quite as large as made out to be.
Your argument is intellectually disingenuous and utterly useless.
The amount of citizens killed in this country by law enforcement is an absolute embarrassment when compared to peer nations, both absolute numbers and per capita. This is an empirical fact.
Your argument is literally useless. Not only is it disingenuous, but it's correctness has no relevance to any discussion. Its only use is to try to trivialize this very real issue. You aren't being objective or empirical. You're being petty and partisan.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
