The Shooting of Alton Sterling

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

In a current example, in NYC we see people being fined very heavily for manspreading and not using people's personal pronouns in order to spare them of having hurt feelings.

wut?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I don't care.

I am talking about the overall picture; not any individual case.

It is undeniable that US police kill far more civilians than their counterparts in other OECD nations. Whether or not these civilians are engaged in a crime at the time of their shooting, it is undeniable that it was not necessary to shoot the majority of them; If it were necessary to protect police, then we would see vastly greater numbers of police killed in the line of duty in the rest of the OECD compared to the US, and we don't see that. If it were necessary to prevent crime, then we would see vastly more crime in the rest of the OECD compared to the US, and we don't see that, either.

Whether or not you can justify each individual case of a police shooting, or any particular case, the clear fact remains that it is possible to have police shoot fewer civilians than they currently do in the US, without a massive increase in the harm to police, or to the wider community.

By what mechanism do you think that US criminals become so lethally dangerous, in comparison to their counterparts in the civilized world?

And is resigned acceptance the most appropriate response to that mechanism, or should steps be taken to remove or reduce that mechanism, so that US police are not so frequently placed in such risky situations?

1) Our criminals have more access to guns.

That is a problem with an easy solution.

2) Our punishments are harsher, people are more likely to take a chance on a shootout rather than go to jail, or simply try it as a means of suicide.

Having asked you multiple times to reconcile this with the fact that several of the unarmed people killed by police officers had ALREADY been arrested and imprisoned multiple times without incident, I'm going to have to call bullshit. I am 101% sure you have never seen the inside of a prison with your own eyes, have no idea what being inside one is like, and in fact have never been enough trouble with the law to have ANY personal point of reference for what a normal person is "more likely" to do in an encounter with a police officer.

3) There's far too much criminal coddling in Europe.

Which doesn't explain why their crime rate is so much lower.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

1) Our criminals have more access to guns.

Then you should do something about that

Realistically, there's nothing that can be done.

Note how your gun crackdown did nothing about the gun violence rate.

3) There's far too much criminal coddling in Europe.

If 'too much' leads to fewer needless deaths, less danger to police, less danger to the public, and no obvious increase in crime, then what would make you describe it as 'too much'?

It would appear that what you call 'criminal coddling' is an effective policing strategy; and that your objection is based on an arbitrary and counterfactual belief that it is both necessary and desirable to be cruel to people who step out of line.

Observation always trumps theory; if 'coddling' works, then it's what you need to do, whether you like it or not.

I mean giving them a slap on the wrist. There's less harm from police/criminal interaction but more harm from criminal/victim interaction. Don't be mislead by our high murder rate--it's almost all criminal vs criminal. Our other crime rates are lower than Europe.

 

[bilby]

Then you should do something about that

Realistically, there's nothing that can be done.

Note how your gun crackdown did nothing about the gun violence rate.

I have no clue what you refer to here.

The only gun crackdown I can think of here is the one we had after the Port Arthur shooting; since when we have had exactly zero mass shootings. The gun violence rate here went from essentially zero, to actually zero.

If that's the one you are thinking of, then you are very badly misinformed about its results.

If not, then you will need to be more explicit.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Realistically, there's nothing that can be done.

Note how your gun crackdown did nothing about the gun violence rate.

I have no clue what you refer to here.

The only gun crackdown I can think of here is the one we had after the Port Arthur shooting; since when we have had exactly zero mass shootings. The gun violence rate here went from essentially zero, to actually zero.

If that's the one you are thinking of, then you are very badly misinformed about its results.

If not, then you will need to be more explicit.

Please note that I said "gun violence rate", not "mass shooting rate". Gun bans do make it harder for crazies to go on a shooting spree but such events are a very small part of the total gun violence rate. Eliminating them entirely will be lost in the noise.

And you have had mass shootings since then anyway.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I have no clue what you refer to here.

The only gun crackdown I can think of here is the one we had after the Port Arthur shooting; since when we have had exactly zero mass shootings. The gun violence rate here went from essentially zero, to actually zero.

If that's the one you are thinking of, then you are very badly misinformed about its results.

If not, then you will need to be more explicit.

Please note that I said "gun violence rate"

Which is still wrong.:laughing-smiley-014

Gun bans do make it harder for crazies to go on a shooting spree but such events are a very small part of the total gun violence rate. Eliminating them entirely will be lost in the noise.

Tell that to the Japanese:

Japan has one of the lowest rates of gun crime in the world. In 2014 there were just six gun deaths, compared to 33,599 in the US. What is the secret?

What do you suppose their secret might be, LP? Wanna take a guess?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Please note that I said "gun violence rate"

Which is still wrong.:laughing-smiley-014

Gun bans do make it harder for crazies to go on a shooting spree but such events are a very small part of the total gun violence rate. Eliminating them entirely will be lost in the noise.

Tell that to the Japanese:

Japan has one of the lowest rates of gun crime in the world. In 2014 there were just six gun deaths, compared to 33,599 in the US. What is the secret?

What do you suppose their secret might be, LP? Wanna take a guess?

We were talking about Australia, not Japan. The gun ban did nothing to the gun violence rate.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

The gun ban did nothing to the gun violence rate.

Still wrong.

" For Australia, the NFA seems to have been incredibly successful in terms of lives saved. While 13 gun massacres (the killing of 4 or more people at one time) occurred in Australia in the 18 years before the NFA, resulting in more than one hundred deaths, in the 14 following years (and up to the present), there were no gun massacres.

The NFA also seems to have reduced firearm homicide outside of mass shootings, as well as firearm suicide. In the seven years before the NFA (1989-1995), the average annual firearm suicide death rate per 100,000 was 2.6 (with a yearly range of 2.2 to 2.9); in the seven years after the buyback was fully implemented (1998-2004), the average annual firearm suicide rate was 1.1 (yearly range 0.8 to 1.4). In the seven years before the NFA, the average annual firearm homicide rate per 100,000 was .43 (range .27 to .60) while for the seven years post NFA, the average annual firearm homicide rate was .25 (range .16 to .33)

Additional evidence strongly suggests that the buyback causally reduced firearm deaths. First, the drop in firearm deaths was largest among the type of firearms most affected by the buyback. Second, firearm deaths in states with higher buyback rates per capita fell proportionately more than in states with lower buyback rates."

Stick to the facts, Dude.

 

[bilby]

The gun ban did nothing to the gun violence rate.

Still wrong.

" For Australia, the NFA seems to have been incredibly successful in terms of lives saved. While 13 gun massacres (the killing of 4 or more people at one time) occurred in Australia in the 18 years before the NFA, resulting in more than one hundred deaths, in the 14 following years (and up to the present), there were no gun massacres.

The NFA also seems to have reduced firearm homicide outside of mass shootings, as well as firearm suicide. In the seven years before the NFA (1989-1995), the average annual firearm suicide death rate per 100,000 was 2.6 (with a yearly range of 2.2 to 2.9); in the seven years after the buyback was fully implemented (1998-2004), the average annual firearm suicide rate was 1.1 (yearly range 0.8 to 1.4). In the seven years before the NFA, the average annual firearm homicide rate per 100,000 was .43 (range .27 to .60) while for the seven years post NFA, the average annual firearm homicide rate was .25 (range .16 to .33)

Additional evidence strongly suggests that the buyback causally reduced firearm deaths. First, the drop in firearm deaths was largest among the type of firearms most affected by the buyback. Second, firearm deaths in states with higher buyback rates per capita fell proportionately more than in states with lower buyback rates."

Stick to the facts, Dude.

But these cannot possibly be facts; They don't conform with LP's prejudices.

Don't worry, he will be along to dismiss them later.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The gun ban did nothing to the gun violence rate.

Still wrong.

" For Australia, the NFA seems to have been incredibly successful in terms of lives saved. While 13 gun massacres (the killing of 4 or more people at one time) occurred in Australia in the 18 years before the NFA, resulting in more than one hundred deaths, in the 14 following years (and up to the present), there were no gun massacres.

The NFA also seems to have reduced firearm homicide outside of mass shootings, as well as firearm suicide. In the seven years before the NFA (1989-1995), the average annual firearm suicide death rate per 100,000 was 2.6 (with a yearly range of 2.2 to 2.9); in the seven years after the buyback was fully implemented (1998-2004), the average annual firearm suicide rate was 1.1 (yearly range 0.8 to 1.4). In the seven years before the NFA, the average annual firearm homicide rate per 100,000 was .43 (range .27 to .60) while for the seven years post NFA, the average annual firearm homicide rate was .25 (range .16 to .33)

Additional evidence strongly suggests that the buyback causally reduced firearm deaths. First, the drop in firearm deaths was largest among the type of firearms most affected by the buyback. Second, firearm deaths in states with higher buyback rates per capita fell proportionately more than in states with lower buyback rates."

Stick to the facts, Dude.

You still don't seem to be able to tell the difference between mass shootings and gun violence.

And there have been mass shootings in Australia since the gun ban.

 

[bilby]

Still wrong.

" For Australia, the NFA seems to have been incredibly successful in terms of lives saved. While 13 gun massacres (the killing of 4 or more people at one time) occurred in Australia in the 18 years before the NFA, resulting in more than one hundred deaths, in the 14 following years (and up to the present), there were no gun massacres.

The NFA also seems to have reduced firearm homicide outside of mass shootings, as well as firearm suicide. In the seven years before the NFA (1989-1995), the average annual firearm suicide death rate per 100,000 was 2.6 (with a yearly range of 2.2 to 2.9); in the seven years after the buyback was fully implemented (1998-2004), the average annual firearm suicide rate was 1.1 (yearly range 0.8 to 1.4). In the seven years before the NFA, the average annual firearm homicide rate per 100,000 was .43 (range .27 to .60) while for the seven years post NFA, the average annual firearm homicide rate was .25 (range .16 to .33)

Additional evidence strongly suggests that the buyback causally reduced firearm deaths. First, the drop in firearm deaths was largest among the type of firearms most affected by the buyback. Second, firearm deaths in states with higher buyback rates per capita fell proportionately more than in states with lower buyback rates."

Stick to the facts, Dude.

You still don't seem to be able to tell the difference between mass shootings and gun violence.

And there have been mass shootings in Australia since the gun ban.

Citation Needed.

 

[LordKiran]

Still wrong.

" For Australia, the NFA seems to have been incredibly successful in terms of lives saved. While 13 gun massacres (the killing of 4 or more people at one time) occurred in Australia in the 18 years before the NFA, resulting in more than one hundred deaths, in the 14 following years (and up to the present), there were no gun massacres.

The NFA also seems to have reduced firearm homicide outside of mass shootings, as well as firearm suicide. In the seven years before the NFA (1989-1995), the average annual firearm suicide death rate per 100,000 was 2.6 (with a yearly range of 2.2 to 2.9); in the seven years after the buyback was fully implemented (1998-2004), the average annual firearm suicide rate was 1.1 (yearly range 0.8 to 1.4). In the seven years before the NFA, the average annual firearm homicide rate per 100,000 was .43 (range .27 to .60) while for the seven years post NFA, the average annual firearm homicide rate was .25 (range .16 to .33)

Additional evidence strongly suggests that the buyback causally reduced firearm deaths. First, the drop in firearm deaths was largest among the type of firearms most affected by the buyback. Second, firearm deaths in states with higher buyback rates per capita fell proportionately more than in states with lower buyback rates."

Stick to the facts, Dude.

You still don't seem to be able to tell the difference between mass shootings and gun violence.

And there have been mass shootings in Australia since the gun ban.

Oh please. Enlighten me LP explain to me the particular distinctions between gun violence and mass shootings which are different and do not constitute gun violence...

 

[ksen]

Please note that I said "gun violence rate"

Which is still wrong.:laughing-smiley-014

Gun bans do make it harder for crazies to go on a shooting spree but such events are a very small part of the total gun violence rate. Eliminating them entirely will be lost in the noise.

Tell that to the Japanese:

Japan has one of the lowest rates of gun crime in the world. In 2014 there were just six gun deaths, compared to 33,599 in the US. What is the secret?

What do you suppose their secret might be, LP? Wanna take a guess?

No blacks.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Still wrong.

" For Australia, the NFA seems to have been incredibly successful in terms of lives saved. While 13 gun massacres (the killing of 4 or more people at one time) occurred in Australia in the 18 years before the NFA, resulting in more than one hundred deaths, in the 14 following years (and up to the present), there were no gun massacres.

The NFA also seems to have reduced firearm homicide outside of mass shootings, as well as firearm suicide. In the seven years before the NFA (1989-1995), the average annual firearm suicide death rate per 100,000 was 2.6 (with a yearly range of 2.2 to 2.9); in the seven years after the buyback was fully implemented (1998-2004), the average annual firearm suicide rate was 1.1 (yearly range 0.8 to 1.4). In the seven years before the NFA, the average annual firearm homicide rate per 100,000 was .43 (range .27 to .60) while for the seven years post NFA, the average annual firearm homicide rate was .25 (range .16 to .33)

Additional evidence strongly suggests that the buyback causally reduced firearm deaths. First, the drop in firearm deaths was largest among the type of firearms most affected by the buyback. Second, firearm deaths in states with higher buyback rates per capita fell proportionately more than in states with lower buyback rates."

Stick to the facts, Dude.

You still don't seem to be able to tell the difference between mass shootings and gun violence.

You still don't seem to be able to READ ENGLISH.

Please review the bolded parts of the post above.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You still don't seem to be able to tell the difference between mass shootings and gun violence.

And there have been mass shootings in Australia since the gun ban.

Citation Needed.

And there have been mass shootings in Australia since the gun ban^BS.

I added the citation.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Which is still wrong.:laughing-smiley-014

Gun bans do make it harder for crazies to go on a shooting spree but such events are a very small part of the total gun violence rate. Eliminating them entirely will be lost in the noise.

Tell that to the Japanese:

Japan has one of the lowest rates of gun crime in the world. In 2014 there were just six gun deaths, compared to 33,599 in the US. What is the secret?

What do you suppose their secret might be, LP? Wanna take a guess?

No blacks.

For some reason I just very clearly heard my uncle's voice in my head:

"Black people aint the problem. Niggers is the problem."

 

[LordKiran]

Please note that I said "gun violence rate"

Which is still wrong.:laughing-smiley-014

Gun bans do make it harder for crazies to go on a shooting spree but such events are a very small part of the total gun violence rate. Eliminating them entirely will be lost in the noise.

Tell that to the Japanese:

Japan has one of the lowest rates of gun crime in the world. In 2014 there were just six gun deaths, compared to 33,599 in the US. What is the secret?

What do you suppose their secret might be, LP? Wanna take a guess?

The Japanese have a long history of disarming the populace?

 

[Derec]

For some reason I just very clearly heard my uncle's voice in my head:
"Black people aint the problem. Niggers is the problem."

I didn't know Chris Rock was your uncle.

 

[LordKiran]

For some reason I just very clearly heard my uncle's voice in my head:
"Black people aint the problem. Niggers is the problem."

I didn't know Chris Rock was your uncle.

Chris Rock was largely being facetious. Sort of like whenever George Carlin would talk about how great it is that people die. When Eddie's uncle would make a distinction between 'blacks' and 'niggers' the idea was probably that 'niggers are blacks who don't know their place.'

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You still don't seem to be able to tell the difference between mass shootings and gun violence.

And there have been mass shootings in Australia since the gun ban.

Citation Needed.

You honestly think that gun violence is only mass shootings??