|
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 November 13 2018 01:44 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
The source I am using has "in the US in 2015, killing 475 people", and that's the number I used.
That's 475 people killed, not injured.
If I am using a source, and the source of the numbers of people killed during a mass shooting in 2015 in USA is 475, that's better than superstanstrain number, which appears to have no source at all.
It might not have had a source, coming as it did fresh, lovely and new from the mind of superstartran, but it certainly does back his point up nicely.
|
Actually now that I reread it, I beleive he is refering to the source the BBC is using, not the BBC itself, but in the end, how many time can you be dishonest? To make an outlandish claim, to ignore proportional of population, (not that helps his case anyhow), to claim that the source is wrong, when it is not, to claim the methodology used by the source is wrong, when it isn't, and to refuse to give a source for your own numbers.
I suppose next he will claim we are all being emotional and not calm, and that we should stop discussing mass shootings in the mass shooting thread. Instead we should be discussing terrorism. Even though more has died to mass shootings. Again.
|
Nah, he will argue that in the future more people will die to islamic terrorism in europe than to mass shootings in the US.
How this is connected, let alone true, my feeble mind can't comprehend.
|
Also, "There is no islamic terrorism in switzerland, because the swiss have guns!"
|
On November 12 2018 13:42 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2018 12:12 Doodsmack wrote:
Let's all take a moment to appreciate the central logic behind the "good guys with guns" argument:
More purpose designed killing devices = more safety More guns should mean a steadily rising homicide rate according to your logic, except the numbers don't back that assertion up. Try again.
Looks like the purpose designed killing devices served their purpose on this occasion. If only there had been more guns inside the bar, it would have been a safer place.
|
On November 13 2018 03:36 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2018 13:42 superstartran wrote:On November 12 2018 12:12 Doodsmack wrote:
Let's all take a moment to appreciate the central logic behind the "good guys with guns" argument:
More purpose designed killing devices = more safety More guns should mean a steadily rising homicide rate according to your logic, except the numbers don't back that assertion up. Try again. Looks like the purpose designed killing devices served their purpose on this occasion. If only there had been more guns inside the bar, it would have been a safer place. https://twitter.com/EricHaywood/status/1061989225774559233
Anytime you lump unjustified police killings into some diatribe about mass shootings and guns, I’m reminded of how unserious some debaters are.
Yes, let’s put cops and guns in the same discussion of lawful gun owners and gun carriers, because their issues are part and parcel with civilian use.
|
On November 13 2018 03:51 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2018 03:36 Doodsmack wrote:On November 12 2018 13:42 superstartran wrote:On November 12 2018 12:12 Doodsmack wrote:
Let's all take a moment to appreciate the central logic behind the "good guys with guns" argument:
More purpose designed killing devices = more safety More guns should mean a steadily rising homicide rate according to your logic, except the numbers don't back that assertion up. Try again. Looks like the purpose designed killing devices served their purpose on this occasion. If only there had been more guns inside the bar, it would have been a safer place. https://twitter.com/EricHaywood/status/1061989225774559233 Anytime you lump unjustified police killings into some diatribe about mass shootings and guns, I’m reminded of how unserious some debaters are. Yes, let’s put cops and guns in the same discussion of lawful gun owners and gun carriers, because their issues are part and parcel with civilian use.
Of course they are, as I explained not long ago.
Look at how many police shootings occur in the US compared to the UK and then try and think of the one single reason for the difference (aside from the frankly laughable suggestion that criminals in the US are worse).
Police in the US have to treat every encounter as a possible life or death encounter because there's so many guns everywhere.
Also, police in the UK are much more likely to be unarmed (with lethal weapons anyway) so you can give them time to learn on the job without handing them the power of life and death over anyone who looks at them funny.
SO because of the presence of guns everywhere:
1: Armed police are on average less trained because all cops are armed
2: Police need to be psychologically on top of their game all the time to make sure no-one gets shot unustly.
3: Police are more likely to get shot at and therefore more likely to want to shoot first to protect themselves.
|
On November 13 2018 03:51 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2018 03:36 Doodsmack wrote:On November 12 2018 13:42 superstartran wrote:On November 12 2018 12:12 Doodsmack wrote:
Let's all take a moment to appreciate the central logic behind the "good guys with guns" argument:
More purpose designed killing devices = more safety More guns should mean a steadily rising homicide rate according to your logic, except the numbers don't back that assertion up. Try again. Looks like the purpose designed killing devices served their purpose on this occasion. If only there had been more guns inside the bar, it would have been a safer place. https://twitter.com/EricHaywood/status/1061989225774559233 Anytime you lump unjustified police killings into some diatribe about mass shootings and guns, I’m reminded of how unserious some debaters are. Yes, let’s put cops and guns in the same discussion of lawful gun owners and gun carriers, because their issues are part and parcel with civilian use.
Uhm.. Police just shot the "good guy with a gun" on the spot. How exactly is this not relevant?
Or racist, another topic you are having trouble seeing.
|
On November 13 2018 03:51 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2018 03:36 Doodsmack wrote:On November 12 2018 13:42 superstartran wrote:On November 12 2018 12:12 Doodsmack wrote:
Let's all take a moment to appreciate the central logic behind the "good guys with guns" argument:
More purpose designed killing devices = more safety More guns should mean a steadily rising homicide rate according to your logic, except the numbers don't back that assertion up. Try again. Looks like the purpose designed killing devices served their purpose on this occasion. If only there had been more guns inside the bar, it would have been a safer place. https://twitter.com/EricHaywood/status/1061989225774559233 Anytime you lump unjustified police killings into some diatribe about mass shootings and guns, I’m reminded of how unserious some debaters are. Yes, let’s put cops and guns in the same discussion of lawful gun owners and gun carriers, because their issues are part and parcel with civilian use.
That's curious, I don't see you thinking that it is outrageous that the policeman (or policewoman) went into a de-escalated situation and murdered the hero.
Also, how is this not relevant? Why would you make a distinction between " cops and guns in the same discussion of lawful gun owners and gun carriers" as if cops were not people and are part of the problem.
|
United States24799 Posts
I think the real issue is that there are a lot of confounding variables and so pointing to some tweet about a specific case where a black armed 'good guy' got shot dead by cops raises more questions than it answers, which is okay if the goal to discuss the whole issue, but is probably not okay if it's being used as some type of no-effort "gotcha."
|
On November 13 2018 03:56 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2018 03:51 Danglars wrote:On November 13 2018 03:36 Doodsmack wrote:On November 12 2018 13:42 superstartran wrote:On November 12 2018 12:12 Doodsmack wrote:
Let's all take a moment to appreciate the central logic behind the "good guys with guns" argument:
More purpose designed killing devices = more safety More guns should mean a steadily rising homicide rate according to your logic, except the numbers don't back that assertion up. Try again. Looks like the purpose designed killing devices served their purpose on this occasion. If only there had been more guns inside the bar, it would have been a safer place. https://twitter.com/EricHaywood/status/1061989225774559233 Anytime you lump unjustified police killings into some diatribe about mass shootings and guns, I’m reminded of how unserious some debaters are. Yes, let’s put cops and guns in the same discussion of lawful gun owners and gun carriers, because their issues are part and parcel with civilian use. Of course they are, as I explained not long ago. Look at how many police shootings occur in the US compared to the UK and then try and think of the one single reason for the difference (aside from the frankly laughable suggestion that criminals in the US are worse). Police in the US have to treat every encounter as a possible life or death encounter because there's so many guns everywhere. Also, police in the UK are much more likely to be unarmed (with lethal weapons anyway) so you can give them time to learn on the job without handing them the power of life and death over anyone who looks at them funny. SO because of the presence of guns everywhere: 1: Armed police are on average less trained because all cops are armed 2: Police need to be psychologically on top of their game all the time to make sure no-one gets shot unustly. 3: Police are more likely to get shot at and therefore more likely to want to shoot first to protect themselves.
I thought the problems with police departments were so recognized as needing a fix as to prevent further consideration of restricting rights given the state of police departments. I had no idea people seriously suggested restricting gun ownership because a cop might shoot you for having one. But I guess the UK is all for banning knives and shit, so maybe it’s a Euro cultural thing.
|
On November 13 2018 04:08 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2018 03:51 Danglars wrote:On November 13 2018 03:36 Doodsmack wrote:On November 12 2018 13:42 superstartran wrote:On November 12 2018 12:12 Doodsmack wrote:
Let's all take a moment to appreciate the central logic behind the "good guys with guns" argument:
More purpose designed killing devices = more safety More guns should mean a steadily rising homicide rate according to your logic, except the numbers don't back that assertion up. Try again. Looks like the purpose designed killing devices served their purpose on this occasion. If only there had been more guns inside the bar, it would have been a safer place. https://twitter.com/EricHaywood/status/1061989225774559233 Anytime you lump unjustified police killings into some diatribe about mass shootings and guns, I’m reminded of how unserious some debaters are. Yes, let’s put cops and guns in the same discussion of lawful gun owners and gun carriers, because their issues are part and parcel with civilian use. Uhm.. Police just shot the "good guy with a gun" on the spot. How exactly is this not relevant? Or racist, another topic you are having trouble seeing.
The global problem is asserting racism without good reason. Some people still have the tinted glasses on and like to say everybody else has trouble seeing what’s apparent to them.
|
It simply illustrates the point that the more guns there are in a given place, the more safe that place is. The cop and the security guard were both good guys, and they both had guns. Therefore the logic that the more good guys there are with guns in a given place, the more safe that place is, is relevant.
|
|
|
On November 13 2018 04:42 micronesia wrote:
I think the real issue is that there are a lot of confounding variables and so pointing to some tweet about a specific case where a black armed 'good guy' got shoe dead by cops raises more questions than it answers, which is okay if the goal to discuss the whole issue, but is probably not okay if it's being used as some type of no-effort "gotcha."
My thought is not so materially different from this. It’s not germane to the regular mass shooting topic (which doesn’t usually consider police reactions to good guy with a gun), and Doodsmacks aim is simply in the haha more guns more safe haha line of things.
By all means, have your fun!
|
On November 13 2018 01:44 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
The source I am using has "in the US in 2015, killing 475 people", and that's the number I used.
That's 475 people killed, not injured.
If I am using a source, and the source of the numbers of people killed during a mass shooting in 2015 in USA is 475, that's better than superstanstrain number, which appears to have no source at all.
This is what your source specifically states
+ Show Spoiler +Gun Violence Archive has always used the FBI derived definition: FOUR or more shot and/or killed in a single event [incident], at the same general time and location, not including the shooter. http://www.shootingtracker.com/
This is categorically false. The FBI categorizes it differently. It's 4 or more deaths. Mother Jones categorizes mass shootings differently, and does not take gang and urban crime violence into account.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data/
That's where I got my numbers. Whether you agree with it or not is one thing, but your BBC article is fucking full of shit, that doesn't even fact check the most basic of things.
|
On November 13 2018 05:29 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2018 01:44 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
The source I am using has "in the US in 2015, killing 475 people", and that's the number I used.
That's 475 people killed, not injured.
If I am using a source, and the source of the numbers of people killed during a mass shooting in 2015 in USA is 475, that's better than superstanstrain number, which appears to have no source at all.
This is what your source specifically states + Show Spoiler +Gun Violence Archive has always used the FBI derived definition: FOUR or more shot and/or killed in a single event [incident], at the same general time and location, not including the shooter. http://www.shootingtracker.com/ This is categorically false. The FBI categorizes it differently. It's 4 or more deaths. Mother Jones categorizes mass shootings differently, and does not take gang and urban crime violence into account. https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data/That's where I got my numbers. Whether you agree with it or not is one thing, but your BBC article is fucking full of shit, that doesn't even fact check the most basic of things.
Because it can't be a mass shooting if only gang members are involved..?
|
On November 13 2018 05:31 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2018 05:29 superstartran wrote:On November 13 2018 01:44 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
The source I am using has "in the US in 2015, killing 475 people", and that's the number I used.
That's 475 people killed, not injured.
If I am using a source, and the source of the numbers of people killed during a mass shooting in 2015 in USA is 475, that's better than superstanstrain number, which appears to have no source at all.
This is what your source specifically states + Show Spoiler +Gun Violence Archive has always used the FBI derived definition: FOUR or more shot and/or killed in a single event [incident], at the same general time and location, not including the shooter. http://www.shootingtracker.com/ This is categorically false. The FBI categorizes it differently. It's 4 or more deaths. Mother Jones categorizes mass shootings differently, and does not take gang and urban crime violence into account. https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data/That's where I got my numbers. Whether you agree with it or not is one thing, but your BBC article is fucking full of shit, that doesn't even fact check the most basic of things. Because it can't be a mass shooting if only gang members are involved..?
It's not a mass shooting if one person dies and three people get injured by flying glass, even you wouldn't go as far to say that. Except the site in question does actually qualify that as a mass shooting. That is going to hyper inflate the number of deaths exponentially. That's intellectually dishonest and you know it, so don't give me anymore bullshit.
|
But 475 people did die in events that most would consider mass shootings in 2015.
|
On November 13 2018 05:36 Plansix wrote:
But 475 people did die in events that most would consider mass shootings in 2015.
That's not true. That site is intellectual dishonest to the point it makes me laugh. I can't believe you guys actually buy into that propaganda bullshit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
