|
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 06:32 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2018 03:33 superstartran wrote: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.
How am I being disingenuous? It is a statistical fact that the number of people that die from police shootings is similar to the number of people that die from cycling. But I don't see people raising hell about cyclists getting hit by cars now do I? Did I deny that there aren't some unjustified police killings? No. I merely stated that you really can't use it as justification to take away firearms because it doesn't happen often enough to really warrant it.
On August 07 2018 03:43 Plansix wrote:
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.
That number of 1000 comes from very liberal sources that arguably used methods that inflated the numbers. The FBI reports roughly 600-700, but let's just say for arguments sake that for whatever reason that all law enforcement agencies across the United States are reporting false numbers in some false conspiracy.
Would you agree with me that the Washington Post is going to have some sort of liberal spin on how they do their work? I'd agree with that. And even then, they came up with about 1000. Now if I told you that cockroaches were killing a thousand people a year, and that we needed to come up with serious national reform in order to exterminate roaches, you'd look at me completely sideways, and justifiably so.
And remember, not once did I deny that unjustified police killings do not occur, rather I pointed out correctly so that it does not happen as often as one would think. Someone earlier made a statement that police killings happen regularly, which essentially implies that they happen so frequently that it's just an every day occurrence. They then used that as one of many justifications to take away firearms. I merely pointed out that 1000 in 300 million isn't that common, and that you can't state that it happens 'regularly' because it statistically doesn't. The numbers don't bear out that fact.
But instead of people agreeing that you know police officers aren't walking around just gunning random people in the street, I've got folks here moral high grounding here about the 'moral implications of the numbers' when I never even argued that point. All I ever stated was that police killings do not happen regularly, and the numbers bear that out.
|
Superstartran, what’s your big problem with stand your ground laws? I get the idea to teach people how to de-escalate situations and people that have false perceptions of their own physical safety. Just, do you imagine people in great threat of physical harm being legally compelled to flee before turning and pulling some action movie draw-twist-and-fire once they run out of ground or are about to be overtaken? I really think that’s too much of a perversion of self defense to say you still have that right in compelled to flee states.
|
On August 07 2018 07:14 Danglars wrote:
Superstartran, what’s your big problem with stand your ground laws? I get the idea to teach people how to de-escalate situations and people that have false perceptions of their own physical safety. Just, do you imagine people in great threat of physical harm being legally compelled to flee before turning and pulling some action movie draw-twist-and-fire once they run out of ground or are about to be overtaken? I really think that’s too much of a perversion of self defense to say you still have that right in compelled to flee states.
I think that the way it's written in some states is really the bigger problem. In Florida for example, it gives WAY too much leeway on the defender. All you have to do is really just demonstrate you fear for your life, whether it's a reasonable or unreasonable fear, and in most cases you either get away free, or get significant time reduced.
I think as long as people followed NRA instructor guidelines on how to handle yourself in sticky situations, you wouldn't be held legally liable under a rewritten law. There will still be some grey area, but a rewritten law at least prevents trigger happy idiots (of which there are quite a few) from dispensing vigilante justice.
|
The Florida law is extremely bad. There is a case right now where the “defender” clearly instigated the conflict, got pushed to the ground and shot the attacked. And the police don’t know if they could successfully charge the the “defender”. Trigger happy morons exist and that is why a lot of states have a requirement to flee, rather than use force.
|
How many of the 300M are people that come in contact with the police because of a situation being called in/reported?
It's impossible to say, really, but using your entire nation's population as sample size is bs.
Many more people drive than come into escalated situations with the police.
|
On August 07 2018 06:55 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2018 06:32 Stratos_speAr wrote:On August 07 2018 03:33 superstartran wrote: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. How am I being disingenuous? It is a statistical fact that the number of people that die from police shootings is similar to the number of people that die from cycling. But I don't see people raising hell about cyclists getting hit by cars now do I? Did I deny that there aren't some unjustified police killings? No. I merely stated that you really can't use it as justification to take away firearms because it doesn't happen often enough to really warrant it. Show nested quote +On August 07 2018 03:43 Plansix wrote:
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. That number of 1000 comes from very liberal sources that arguably used methods that inflated the numbers. The FBI reports roughly 600-700, but let's just say for arguments sake that for whatever reason that all law enforcement agencies across the United States are reporting false numbers in some false conspiracy. Would you agree with me that the Washington Post is going to have some sort of liberal spin on how they do their work? I'd agree with that. And even then, they came up with about 1000. Now if I told you that cockroaches were killing a thousand people a year, and that we needed to come up with serious national reform in order to exterminate roaches, you'd look at me completely sideways, and justifiably so. And remember, not once did I deny that unjustified police killings do not occur, rather I pointed out correctly so that it does not happen as often as one would think. Someone earlier made a statement that police killings happen regularly, which essentially implies that they happen so frequently that it's just an every day occurrence. They then used that as one of many justifications to take away firearms. I merely pointed out that 1000 in 300 million isn't that common, and that you can't state that it happens 'regularly' because it statistically doesn't. The numbers don't bear out that fact. But instead of people agreeing that you know police officers aren't walking around just gunning random people in the street, I've got folks here moral high grounding here about the 'moral implications of the numbers' when I never even argued that point. All I ever stated was that police killings do not happen regularly, and the numbers bear that out.
I think the disagreement here is over your definition of "regularly"
Yes, tornadoes and bicycles and cockroaches and whatever else you wanna come up with probably kill as many people in a year as police shootings. the total deaths by police shooting in a year taken as a percentage of the population is not a high number. We get it.
What everyone continues to throw back at you is the idea that this is an event that happens far more often here than it does in other developed nations. Furthermore this isn't a case of someone stepping on a rake or falling off a bicycle or whatever, these are horrifying instances of law enforcement killing people.
Your comparisons to other statistical events are entirely out of context.
|
On August 07 2018 07:19 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2018 07:14 Danglars wrote:
Superstartran, what’s your big problem with stand your ground laws? I get the idea to teach people how to de-escalate situations and people that have false perceptions of their own physical safety. Just, do you imagine people in great threat of physical harm being legally compelled to flee before turning and pulling some action movie draw-twist-and-fire once they run out of ground or are about to be overtaken? I really think that’s too much of a perversion of self defense to say you still have that right in compelled to flee states. I think that the way it's written in some states is really the bigger problem. In Florida for example, it gives WAY too much leeway on the defender. All you have to do is really just demonstrate you fear for your life, whether it's a reasonable or unreasonable fear, and in most cases you either get away free, or get significant time reduced. I think as long as people followed NRA instructor guidelines on how to handle yourself in sticky situations, you wouldn't be held legally liable under a rewritten law. There will still be some grey area, but a rewritten law at least prevents trigger happy idiots (of which there are quite a few) from dispensing vigilante justice.
Ok. I can understand questions about how it’s written with respects to credible fear for your life.
|
On August 07 2018 08:10 Aveng3r wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2018 06:55 superstartran wrote:On August 07 2018 06:32 Stratos_speAr wrote:On August 07 2018 03:33 superstartran wrote: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. How am I being disingenuous? It is a statistical fact that the number of people that die from police shootings is similar to the number of people that die from cycling. But I don't see people raising hell about cyclists getting hit by cars now do I? Did I deny that there aren't some unjustified police killings? No. I merely stated that you really can't use it as justification to take away firearms because it doesn't happen often enough to really warrant it. On August 07 2018 03:43 Plansix wrote:
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. That number of 1000 comes from very liberal sources that arguably used methods that inflated the numbers. The FBI reports roughly 600-700, but let's just say for arguments sake that for whatever reason that all law enforcement agencies across the United States are reporting false numbers in some false conspiracy. Would you agree with me that the Washington Post is going to have some sort of liberal spin on how they do their work? I'd agree with that. And even then, they came up with about 1000. Now if I told you that cockroaches were killing a thousand people a year, and that we needed to come up with serious national reform in order to exterminate roaches, you'd look at me completely sideways, and justifiably so. And remember, not once did I deny that unjustified police killings do not occur, rather I pointed out correctly so that it does not happen as often as one would think. Someone earlier made a statement that police killings happen regularly, which essentially implies that they happen so frequently that it's just an every day occurrence. They then used that as one of many justifications to take away firearms. I merely pointed out that 1000 in 300 million isn't that common, and that you can't state that it happens 'regularly' because it statistically doesn't. The numbers don't bear out that fact. But instead of people agreeing that you know police officers aren't walking around just gunning random people in the street, I've got folks here moral high grounding here about the 'moral implications of the numbers' when I never even argued that point. All I ever stated was that police killings do not happen regularly, and the numbers bear that out. I think the disagreement here is over your definition of "regularly" Yes, tornadoes and bicycles and cockroaches and whatever else you wanna come up with probably kill as many people in a year as police shootings. the total deaths by police shooting in a year taken as a percentage of the population is not a high number. We get it. What everyone continues to throw back at you is the idea that this is an event that happens far more often here than it does in other developed nations. Furthermore this isn't a case of someone stepping on a rake or falling off a bicycle or whatever, these are horrifying instances of law enforcement killing people. Your comparisons to other statistical events are entirely out of context.
They are not out of context at all, Simberto was the one who started the whole train of throwing random statistics out of the blue that have absolutely nothing to do with the discussion.
Regularity implies that it happens frequently. Police shootings do not happen frequently. Just because country A. has more incidents than country B., does not mean that country A. has something that occurs frequently, it just occurs more often.
The original statement was that police officers shoot unarmed civilians with regularity in the United States of America. That is the furthest thing from the truth, and all statistics bear out that fact. This has nothing to do with 'other countries.' It's statistically false to say that police shootings happen regularly in the United States, especially against unarmed people.
|
United States42778 Posts
Frequently isn’t an objective measure. The fact that one happened close enough for me to hear it is far more frequent than I’d like, coming from England.
|
On August 07 2018 09:31 KwarK wrote:
Frequently isn’t an objective measure. The fact that one happened close enough for me to hear it is far more frequent than I’d like, coming from England.
1000 shootings in a year doesn't even come remotely close to qualifying as 'frequently'. If you call that frequently I am free to call the U.K. a hell hole where people knife each other left and right.
|
The government is killing 1000 citizens at year and their killers rare see the inside of a court room. But it isn’t worth discussing because the number is small.
Man, if we applied the same standards to the chances of the government taking people’s guns, the NRA sounds pretty stupid.
|
United States42778 Posts
On August 07 2018 09:37 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2018 09:31 KwarK wrote:
Frequently isn’t an objective measure. The fact that one happened close enough for me to hear it is far more frequent than I’d like, coming from England. 1000 shootings in a year doesn't even come remotely close to qualifying as 'frequently'. If you call that frequently I am free to call the U.K. a hell hole where people knife each other left and right.
Never heard anyone get stabbed in the UK. Just saying.
|
On August 07 2018 09:19 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2018 08:10 Aveng3r wrote:On August 07 2018 06:55 superstartran wrote:On August 07 2018 06:32 Stratos_speAr wrote:On August 07 2018 03:33 superstartran wrote: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. How am I being disingenuous? It is a statistical fact that the number of people that die from police shootings is similar to the number of people that die from cycling. But I don't see people raising hell about cyclists getting hit by cars now do I? Did I deny that there aren't some unjustified police killings? No. I merely stated that you really can't use it as justification to take away firearms because it doesn't happen often enough to really warrant it. On August 07 2018 03:43 Plansix wrote:
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. That number of 1000 comes from very liberal sources that arguably used methods that inflated the numbers. The FBI reports roughly 600-700, but let's just say for arguments sake that for whatever reason that all law enforcement agencies across the United States are reporting false numbers in some false conspiracy. Would you agree with me that the Washington Post is going to have some sort of liberal spin on how they do their work? I'd agree with that. And even then, they came up with about 1000. Now if I told you that cockroaches were killing a thousand people a year, and that we needed to come up with serious national reform in order to exterminate roaches, you'd look at me completely sideways, and justifiably so. And remember, not once did I deny that unjustified police killings do not occur, rather I pointed out correctly so that it does not happen as often as one would think. Someone earlier made a statement that police killings happen regularly, which essentially implies that they happen so frequently that it's just an every day occurrence. They then used that as one of many justifications to take away firearms. I merely pointed out that 1000 in 300 million isn't that common, and that you can't state that it happens 'regularly' because it statistically doesn't. The numbers don't bear out that fact. But instead of people agreeing that you know police officers aren't walking around just gunning random people in the street, I've got folks here moral high grounding here about the 'moral implications of the numbers' when I never even argued that point. All I ever stated was that police killings do not happen regularly, and the numbers bear that out. I think the disagreement here is over your definition of "regularly" Yes, tornadoes and bicycles and cockroaches and whatever else you wanna come up with probably kill as many people in a year as police shootings. the total deaths by police shooting in a year taken as a percentage of the population is not a high number. We get it. What everyone continues to throw back at you is the idea that this is an event that happens far more often here than it does in other developed nations. Furthermore this isn't a case of someone stepping on a rake or falling off a bicycle or whatever, these are horrifying instances of law enforcement killing people. Your comparisons to other statistical events are entirely out of context. They are not out of context at all, Simberto was the one who started the whole train of throwing random statistics out of the blue that have absolutely nothing to do with the discussion. Regularity implies that it happens frequently. Police shootings do not happen frequently. Just because country A. has more incidents than country B., does not mean that country A. has something that occurs frequently, it just occurs more often.The original statement was that police officers shoot unarmed civilians with regularity in the United States of America. That is the furthest thing from the truth, and all statistics bear out that fact. This has nothing to do with 'other countries.' It's statistically false to say that police shootings happen regularly in the United States, especially against unarmed people.
You keep saying "all statistics bear this out" then that is simply not true. You can't even define what is regular to say that this isn't regular.
I consider roughly 3 deaths a day "regular". And yes your stats are out of context because this is the institution that should be protecting our life actually taking it in quadruple digits yearly, as opposed to accidents or acts of nature.
You just conveniently ignore the fact that EVERY peer nation has little to no problem with this issue. This contextualizes the fact that this occurs way too often and the fact that we have repeatedly pointed this out and you still ignore it shows your lack of integrity in this discussion.
|
On August 07 2018 09:37 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2018 09:31 KwarK wrote:
Frequently isn’t an objective measure. The fact that one happened close enough for me to hear it is far more frequent than I’d like, coming from England. 1000 shootings in a year doesn't even come remotely close to qualifying as 'frequently'. If you call that frequently I am free to call the U.K. a hell hole where people knife each other left and right.
Your points regarding your definition of "frequently" are well taken, friend
|
On August 07 2018 10:28 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2018 09:19 superstartran wrote:On August 07 2018 08:10 Aveng3r wrote:On August 07 2018 06:55 superstartran wrote:On August 07 2018 06:32 Stratos_speAr wrote:On August 07 2018 03:33 superstartran wrote: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. How am I being disingenuous? It is a statistical fact that the number of people that die from police shootings is similar to the number of people that die from cycling. But I don't see people raising hell about cyclists getting hit by cars now do I? Did I deny that there aren't some unjustified police killings? No. I merely stated that you really can't use it as justification to take away firearms because it doesn't happen often enough to really warrant it. On August 07 2018 03:43 Plansix wrote:
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. That number of 1000 comes from very liberal sources that arguably used methods that inflated the numbers. The FBI reports roughly 600-700, but let's just say for arguments sake that for whatever reason that all law enforcement agencies across the United States are reporting false numbers in some false conspiracy. Would you agree with me that the Washington Post is going to have some sort of liberal spin on how they do their work? I'd agree with that. And even then, they came up with about 1000. Now if I told you that cockroaches were killing a thousand people a year, and that we needed to come up with serious national reform in order to exterminate roaches, you'd look at me completely sideways, and justifiably so. And remember, not once did I deny that unjustified police killings do not occur, rather I pointed out correctly so that it does not happen as often as one would think. Someone earlier made a statement that police killings happen regularly, which essentially implies that they happen so frequently that it's just an every day occurrence. They then used that as one of many justifications to take away firearms. I merely pointed out that 1000 in 300 million isn't that common, and that you can't state that it happens 'regularly' because it statistically doesn't. The numbers don't bear out that fact. But instead of people agreeing that you know police officers aren't walking around just gunning random people in the street, I've got folks here moral high grounding here about the 'moral implications of the numbers' when I never even argued that point. All I ever stated was that police killings do not happen regularly, and the numbers bear that out. I think the disagreement here is over your definition of "regularly" Yes, tornadoes and bicycles and cockroaches and whatever else you wanna come up with probably kill as many people in a year as police shootings. the total deaths by police shooting in a year taken as a percentage of the population is not a high number. We get it. What everyone continues to throw back at you is the idea that this is an event that happens far more often here than it does in other developed nations. Furthermore this isn't a case of someone stepping on a rake or falling off a bicycle or whatever, these are horrifying instances of law enforcement killing people. Your comparisons to other statistical events are entirely out of context. They are not out of context at all, Simberto was the one who started the whole train of throwing random statistics out of the blue that have absolutely nothing to do with the discussion. Regularity implies that it happens frequently. Police shootings do not happen frequently. Just because country A. has more incidents than country B., does not mean that country A. has something that occurs frequently, it just occurs more often.The original statement was that police officers shoot unarmed civilians with regularity in the United States of America. That is the furthest thing from the truth, and all statistics bear out that fact. This has nothing to do with 'other countries.' It's statistically false to say that police shootings happen regularly in the United States, especially against unarmed people. You keep saying "all statistics bear this out" then that is simply not true. You can't even define what is regular to say that this isn't regular. I consider roughly 3 deaths a day "regular". And yes your stats are out of context because this is the institution that should be protecting our life actually taking it in quadruple digits yearly, as opposed to accidents or acts of nature. You just conveniently ignore the fact that EVERY peer nation has little to no problem with this issue. This contextualizes the fact that this occurs way too often and the fact that we have repeatedly pointed this out and you still ignore it shows your lack of integrity in this discussion.
Every other peer nation also has dramatically different circumstances regarding their geography, socioeconomic make up, culture, and various other factors. Trying to just cross compare and just say "HEY LOOK WHY DOES IT WORK OVER HERE" is pretty dishonest in itself, but you seem very keen on doing that.
'Out of context'
You're more likely to die from a bike accident then be shot and killed by a police officer. Unless your definition of regular also includes significant chances of getting hit by a force of nature and dying from it, I'd say that qualifies as 'not regular.' Like I said, some years there are more bike accident deaths then legally justified police homicide, I don't see people starting an entire bike safety movement.
I'm not saying I don't recognize the problem; never stated that. I'm stating that the problem isn't quite as large as made out to be. It's not like it's an epidemic where police officers literally walk out into the street and just gun down whoever they want.
On August 07 2018 10:12 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2018 09:37 superstartran wrote:On August 07 2018 09:31 KwarK wrote:
Frequently isn’t an objective measure. The fact that one happened close enough for me to hear it is far more frequent than I’d like, coming from England. 1000 shootings in a year doesn't even come remotely close to qualifying as 'frequently'. If you call that frequently I am free to call the U.K. a hell hole where people knife each other left and right. Never heard anyone get stabbed in the UK. Just saying.
I guess you must not read news regarding the UK very much. That was all the UK media was talking about for months.
On August 07 2018 10:10 Plansix wrote:
The government is killing 1000 citizens at year and their killers rare see the inside of a court room. But it isn’t worth discussing because the number is small.
Man, if we applied the same standards to the chances of the government taking people’s guns, the NRA sounds pretty stupid.
And the vast majority of those are legally justified homicides along with the fact that the overwhelming majority were armed and confronting police officers. But that would require you to actually read the sources and go through the database before spewing a completely uninformed opinion.
Mind you, unarmed doesn't necessarily mean 'not dangerous' either.
|
You guys have ~700 bike deaths a year and no one's started a bike safety movement yet? I think you need to start arming cyclists.
|
On August 07 2018 13:43 superstartran wrote:
I guess you must not read news regarding the UK very much. That was all the UK media was talking about for months.
This again?
No, it wasn't all the UK media was talking about for months. There was probably 3 days where it was news, and on subsequent days knifings were reported as being related to a general theme or tendency.
To put it into perspective, we have had more headlines about the Sun being hot in the Summer.
There was a single fire in a rural area just outside Manchester (zero injuries or fatalities) that got more headlines than the 'knife epidemic'.
|
I like how cycling is used as a parallel for something which kills a lot of people but doesn't get any attention.
Being from the Netherlands seeing US cycling infrastructure (or the lack of it) makes me weep. People should be starting a safety movement for that. So I don't think it's a very valid point. The US has 3 times as many traffic deaths than the Netherlands per person. In 2015 in the US 800 cyclists were killed in traffic accidents, in the Netherlands this was 180 people, a country where a person on average cycles 900 km (around 600 miles) per year.
You should be starting a safety movement for your cyclists.
|
On August 07 2018 13:43 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2018 10:28 Stratos_speAr wrote:On August 07 2018 09:19 superstartran wrote:On August 07 2018 08:10 Aveng3r wrote:On August 07 2018 06:55 superstartran wrote:On August 07 2018 06:32 Stratos_speAr wrote:On August 07 2018 03:33 superstartran wrote: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. How am I being disingenuous? It is a statistical fact that the number of people that die from police shootings is similar to the number of people that die from cycling. But I don't see people raising hell about cyclists getting hit by cars now do I? Did I deny that there aren't some unjustified police killings? No. I merely stated that you really can't use it as justification to take away firearms because it doesn't happen often enough to really warrant it. On August 07 2018 03:43 Plansix wrote:
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. That number of 1000 comes from very liberal sources that arguably used methods that inflated the numbers. The FBI reports roughly 600-700, but let's just say for arguments sake that for whatever reason that all law enforcement agencies across the United States are reporting false numbers in some false conspiracy. Would you agree with me that the Washington Post is going to have some sort of liberal spin on how they do their work? I'd agree with that. And even then, they came up with about 1000. Now if I told you that cockroaches were killing a thousand people a year, and that we needed to come up with serious national reform in order to exterminate roaches, you'd look at me completely sideways, and justifiably so. And remember, not once did I deny that unjustified police killings do not occur, rather I pointed out correctly so that it does not happen as often as one would think. Someone earlier made a statement that police killings happen regularly, which essentially implies that they happen so frequently that it's just an every day occurrence. They then used that as one of many justifications to take away firearms. I merely pointed out that 1000 in 300 million isn't that common, and that you can't state that it happens 'regularly' because it statistically doesn't. The numbers don't bear out that fact. But instead of people agreeing that you know police officers aren't walking around just gunning random people in the street, I've got folks here moral high grounding here about the 'moral implications of the numbers' when I never even argued that point. All I ever stated was that police killings do not happen regularly, and the numbers bear that out. I think the disagreement here is over your definition of "regularly" Yes, tornadoes and bicycles and cockroaches and whatever else you wanna come up with probably kill as many people in a year as police shootings. the total deaths by police shooting in a year taken as a percentage of the population is not a high number. We get it. What everyone continues to throw back at you is the idea that this is an event that happens far more often here than it does in other developed nations. Furthermore this isn't a case of someone stepping on a rake or falling off a bicycle or whatever, these are horrifying instances of law enforcement killing people. Your comparisons to other statistical events are entirely out of context. They are not out of context at all, Simberto was the one who started the whole train of throwing random statistics out of the blue that have absolutely nothing to do with the discussion. Regularity implies that it happens frequently. Police shootings do not happen frequently. Just because country A. has more incidents than country B., does not mean that country A. has something that occurs frequently, it just occurs more often.The original statement was that police officers shoot unarmed civilians with regularity in the United States of America. That is the furthest thing from the truth, and all statistics bear out that fact. This has nothing to do with 'other countries.' It's statistically false to say that police shootings happen regularly in the United States, especially against unarmed people. You keep saying "all statistics bear this out" then that is simply not true. You can't even define what is regular to say that this isn't regular. I consider roughly 3 deaths a day "regular". And yes your stats are out of context because this is the institution that should be protecting our life actually taking it in quadruple digits yearly, as opposed to accidents or acts of nature. You just conveniently ignore the fact that EVERY peer nation has little to no problem with this issue. This contextualizes the fact that this occurs way too often and the fact that we have repeatedly pointed this out and you still ignore it shows your lack of integrity in this discussion. Every other peer nation also has dramatically different circumstances regarding their geography, socioeconomic make up, culture, and various other factors. Trying to just cross compare and just say "HEY LOOK WHY DOES IT WORK OVER HERE" is pretty dishonest in itself, but you seem very keen on doing that. 'Out of context' You're more likely to die from a bike accident then be shot and killed by a police officer. Unless your definition of regular also includes significant chances of getting hit by a force of nature and dying from it, I'd say that qualifies as 'not regular.' Like I said, some years there are more bike accident deaths then legally justified police homicide, I don't see people starting an entire bike safety movement. I'm not saying I don't recognize the problem; never stated that. I'm stating that the problem isn't quite as large as made out to be. It's not like it's an epidemic where police officers literally walk out into the street and just gun down whoever they want. Show nested quote +On August 07 2018 10:12 KwarK wrote:On August 07 2018 09:37 superstartran wrote:On August 07 2018 09:31 KwarK wrote:
Frequently isn’t an objective measure. The fact that one happened close enough for me to hear it is far more frequent than I’d like, coming from England. 1000 shootings in a year doesn't even come remotely close to qualifying as 'frequently'. If you call that frequently I am free to call the U.K. a hell hole where people knife each other left and right. Never heard anyone get stabbed in the UK. Just saying. I guess you must not read news regarding the UK very much. That was all the UK media was talking about for months. Show nested quote +On August 07 2018 10:10 Plansix wrote:
The government is killing 1000 citizens at year and their killers rare see the inside of a court room. But it isn’t worth discussing because the number is small.
Man, if we applied the same standards to the chances of the government taking people’s guns, the NRA sounds pretty stupid. And the vast majority of those are legally justified homicides along with the fact that the overwhelming majority were armed and confronting police officers. But that would require you to actually read the sources and go through the database before spewing a completely uninformed opinion. Mind you, unarmed doesn't necessarily mean 'not dangerous' either.
Okay, because you suddenly believe in "statistics" and hide behind definitions of words, i will yield to you and will not claim, that in the US the police will regularly kill civilians that are no threat to them. This was not what the argument was relying on though. And you did not adress my argument at all because you were so focused on derailing the thread on a crusade against a misuse of the word regularly.
Here is the argument again, please be so kind and this time use all that energy you showed on the last two pages and adress the actual argument:
1) Professional law-enforcemnet personel unjustifiably kills people when in fear of their life.
2) Professional law-enforcemnet personel is much more used to those situations and has more training in handling of their weapon and assessing threats then a civilian with NRA training.
=> Civilians with or without NRA training will use deadly force way more often when put in the position of self defense with a gun then law-enforcement.
=> Training is good but in the end it can only do so much. If you put weapons in the hands of someone and allow them to use them to kill people under self defense, people will die. SOme of those people were no threat and should not have been killed.
That is the argument. Do you agree?
Now everyone coming to this conclusion does not have to agree on what should follow. For me, this conclusion means that arming the population results in more deaths then not arming the population, therefor the population should not be armed. You can come to different follow-up conclusions.
And as you believe that very low chances of something happening means they should not be acted upon, how do you then come to the conclusion you should be ready with a weapon in case someone wants to murder you or someone want s to take away your freedom? How high do you believe your chances are one of those would happen? Why is a low number in this case relevant and in one that don't fit your narrative not? The odds of having to defend yourself against an oppressive government so far are 1 in 240 years. Why even use something so statistically insignificant as a reason for owning guns?
|
On August 07 2018 13:43 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2018 10:28 Stratos_speAr wrote:On August 07 2018 09:19 superstartran wrote:On August 07 2018 08:10 Aveng3r wrote:On August 07 2018 06:55 superstartran wrote:On August 07 2018 06:32 Stratos_speAr wrote:On August 07 2018 03:33 superstartran wrote: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. How am I being disingenuous? It is a statistical fact that the number of people that die from police shootings is similar to the number of people that die from cycling. But I don't see people raising hell about cyclists getting hit by cars now do I? Did I deny that there aren't some unjustified police killings? No. I merely stated that you really can't use it as justification to take away firearms because it doesn't happen often enough to really warrant it. On August 07 2018 03:43 Plansix wrote:
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. That number of 1000 comes from very liberal sources that arguably used methods that inflated the numbers. The FBI reports roughly 600-700, but let's just say for arguments sake that for whatever reason that all law enforcement agencies across the United States are reporting false numbers in some false conspiracy. Would you agree with me that the Washington Post is going to have some sort of liberal spin on how they do their work? I'd agree with that. And even then, they came up with about 1000. Now if I told you that cockroaches were killing a thousand people a year, and that we needed to come up with serious national reform in order to exterminate roaches, you'd look at me completely sideways, and justifiably so. And remember, not once did I deny that unjustified police killings do not occur, rather I pointed out correctly so that it does not happen as often as one would think. Someone earlier made a statement that police killings happen regularly, which essentially implies that they happen so frequently that it's just an every day occurrence. They then used that as one of many justifications to take away firearms. I merely pointed out that 1000 in 300 million isn't that common, and that you can't state that it happens 'regularly' because it statistically doesn't. The numbers don't bear out that fact. But instead of people agreeing that you know police officers aren't walking around just gunning random people in the street, I've got folks here moral high grounding here about the 'moral implications of the numbers' when I never even argued that point. All I ever stated was that police killings do not happen regularly, and the numbers bear that out. I think the disagreement here is over your definition of "regularly" Yes, tornadoes and bicycles and cockroaches and whatever else you wanna come up with probably kill as many people in a year as police shootings. the total deaths by police shooting in a year taken as a percentage of the population is not a high number. We get it. What everyone continues to throw back at you is the idea that this is an event that happens far more often here than it does in other developed nations. Furthermore this isn't a case of someone stepping on a rake or falling off a bicycle or whatever, these are horrifying instances of law enforcement killing people. Your comparisons to other statistical events are entirely out of context. They are not out of context at all, Simberto was the one who started the whole train of throwing random statistics out of the blue that have absolutely nothing to do with the discussion. Regularity implies that it happens frequently. Police shootings do not happen frequently. Just because country A. has more incidents than country B., does not mean that country A. has something that occurs frequently, it just occurs more often.The original statement was that police officers shoot unarmed civilians with regularity in the United States of America. That is the furthest thing from the truth, and all statistics bear out that fact. This has nothing to do with 'other countries.' It's statistically false to say that police shootings happen regularly in the United States, especially against unarmed people. You keep saying "all statistics bear this out" then that is simply not true. You can't even define what is regular to say that this isn't regular. I consider roughly 3 deaths a day "regular". And yes your stats are out of context because this is the institution that should be protecting our life actually taking it in quadruple digits yearly, as opposed to accidents or acts of nature. You just conveniently ignore the fact that EVERY peer nation has little to no problem with this issue. This contextualizes the fact that this occurs way too often and the fact that we have repeatedly pointed this out and you still ignore it shows your lack of integrity in this discussion. Every other peer nation also has dramatically different circumstances regarding their geography, socioeconomic make up, culture, and various other factors. Trying to just cross compare and just say "HEY LOOK WHY DOES IT WORK OVER HERE" is pretty dishonest in itself, but you seem very keen on doing that.
so....youre saying "1000 deaths is acceptable in the US because this is just how we are. deal with it"
i say this so many times in this thread, but its impossible to convince guys like sst when their entire stance on the matter is "not enough people are dying for me to give a fuck"
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
