The Shooting of Alton Sterling

[LordKiran]

Also a list of things not on LP's graph:

-Gun-related injuries per capita

-Gun-related suicide rates

-Gun-related criminal activity rates

For some reason only homicides seem to matter

 

[Loren Pechtel]

As my graph shows, the homicide rate was declining anyway. What I'm saying is the gun-banners are taking credit for this decline.



Actually, it does make sense--because gun bans do basically nothing about armed criminals. Gun bans only disarm the law abiding until they have been in place for long enough (and that's a very long time!) for the criminal guns to be removed from circulation.

That does not address "it seems implausible the that the ban had no effect whatsoever on gun homicide rates in Australia.".

This site (http://www.aic.gov.au/dataTools/facts/weaponUseTrend.html) has annual Australian data on violent crime (3 caterories: homicide, robbery and kidnappings) by weapon used (including no weapon). There is a clear dropoff in handguns used in robberies as well as in homicides.

Which carefully omits the pre-ban trend line data.

I produced data. You have produced nothing but hand-waving non-responses.

See the line shift down in that graph I posted?

And you produced irrelevant data, once again claiming the already-existing decline in homicide was the result of the gun ban.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

See the line shift down in that graph I posted?

The shift that is (1) only pronounced when you limit the data from 1989 to 1999 and (2) is not specifically related to gun violence or gun homicide at all?

And you produced irrelevant data, once again claiming the already-existing decline in homicide was the result of the gun ban.

The decline in the GUN RELATED homicide, suicide and violence rate was the result of the gun ban. And the rate of gun violence actually deceased even in the years when the homicide rate briefly increased.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The shift that is (1) only pronounced when you limit the data from 1989 to 1999 and (2) is not specifically related to gun violence or gun homicide at all?

And you produced irrelevant data, once again claiming the already-existing decline in homicide was the result of the gun ban.

The decline in the GUN RELATED homicide, suicide and violence rate was the result of the gun ban. And the rate of gun violence actually deceased even in the years when the homicide rate briefly increased.

You're still trying to take credit for the pre-existing trend.

 

[LordKiran]

The shift that is (1) only pronounced when you limit the data from 1989 to 1999 and (2) is not specifically related to gun violence or gun homicide at all?



The decline in the GUN RELATED homicide, suicide and violence rate was the result of the gun ban. And the rate of gun violence actually deceased even in the years when the homicide rate briefly increased.

You're still trying to take credit for the pre-existing trend.

Your trend line is for homicides in general, not for gun-related homicides specifically. Nor does it account for the decrease of gun-related injuries, suicides, or criminal activity.

In short, your supplied graph is both irrelevant and woefully inadequate.

 

[laughing dog]

That does not address "it seems implausible the that the ban had no effect whatsoever on gun homicide rates in Australia.".

This site (http://www.aic.gov.au/dataTools/facts/weaponUseTrend.html) has annual Australian data on violent crime (3 caterories: homicide, robbery and kidnappings) by weapon used (including no weapon). There is a clear dropoff in handguns used in robberies as well as in homicides.

Which carefully omits the pre-ban trend line data.

I produced data. You have produced nothing but hand-waving non-responses.

See the line shift down in that graph I posted?

You mean that bullshit line about homicides in general?

And you produced irrelevant data, once again claiming the already-existing decline in homicide was the result of the gun ban.

I did no such thing. Unlike you, I produced actual relevant data that shows a dropoff in handguns used in robberies and homicides. Unlike you, I did not claim a cause. In other words, unlike you, I addressed the issue with relevant data and made no handwaved claim.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That does not address "it seems implausible the that the ban had no effect whatsoever on gun homicide rates in Australia.".

This site (http://www.aic.gov.au/dataTools/facts/weaponUseTrend.html) has annual Australian data on violent crime (3 caterories: homicide, robbery and kidnappings) by weapon used (including no weapon). There is a clear dropoff in handguns used in robberies as well as in homicides.

Which carefully omits the pre-ban trend line data.

I produced data. You have produced nothing but hand-waving non-responses.

See the line shift down in that graph I posted?

You mean that bullshit line about homicides in general?

And you produced irrelevant data, once again claiming the already-existing decline in homicide was the result of the gun ban.

I did no such thing. Unlike you, I produced actual relevant data that shows a dropoff in handguns used in robberies and homicides. Unlike you, I did not claim a cause. In other words, unlike you, I addressed the issue with relevant data and made no handwaved claim.

Claiming it's relevant doesn't make it so. You need data that shows the trend line before and after, yours does not.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

The shift that is (1) only pronounced when you limit the data from 1989 to 1999 and (2) is not specifically related to gun violence or gun homicide at all?



The decline in the GUN RELATED homicide, suicide and violence rate was the result of the gun ban. And the rate of gun violence actually deceased even in the years when the homicide rate briefly increased.

You're still trying to take credit for the pre-existing trend.

Until you have any data suggesting a downward trend in GUN RELATED violence in Australia for the ten years before and after the ban, this remains a baseless fantasy of yours.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

That does not address "it seems implausible the that the ban had no effect whatsoever on gun homicide rates in Australia.".

This site (http://www.aic.gov.au/dataTools/facts/weaponUseTrend.html) has annual Australian data on violent crime (3 caterories: homicide, robbery and kidnappings) by weapon used (including no weapon). There is a clear dropoff in handguns used in robberies as well as in homicides.

Which carefully omits the pre-ban trend line data.

I produced data. You have produced nothing but hand-waving non-responses.

See the line shift down in that graph I posted?

You mean that bullshit line about homicides in general?

And you produced irrelevant data, once again claiming the already-existing decline in homicide was the result of the gun ban.

I did no such thing. Unlike you, I produced actual relevant data that shows a dropoff in handguns used in robberies and homicides. Unlike you, I did not claim a cause. In other words, unlike you, I addressed the issue with relevant data and made no handwaved claim.

Claiming it's relevant doesn't make it so.

There you go again...

Your original claim:
The rate of gun violence in Australia did not change.

This has since been proven false. So now you have shifted to:
The decreasing homicide rate in Australia had nothing to do with the gun ban.

Which, even if it were true, is completely unrelated to the rate of gun violence in Australia, which is what your original claim was about, and what the gun ban was actually about.

You need data that shows the trend line before and after, yours does not.

That is a truly amazing thing for you to say, considering that earlier in this thread you wrote:

Showing that the rate was higher before than after is a red herring.

It's almost as if you are shifting from one position to another based entirely on how well it fits your preconceptions.

 

[laughing dog]

That does not address "it seems implausible the that the ban had no effect whatsoever on gun homicide rates in Australia.".

This site (http://www.aic.gov.au/dataTools/facts/weaponUseTrend.html) has annual Australian data on violent crime (3 caterories: homicide, robbery and kidnappings) by weapon used (including no weapon). There is a clear dropoff in handguns used in robberies as well as in homicides.

Which carefully omits the pre-ban trend line data.

I produced data. You have produced nothing but hand-waving non-responses.

See the line shift down in that graph I posted?

You mean that bullshit line about homicides in general?

And you produced irrelevant data, once again claiming the already-existing decline in homicide was the result of the gun ban.

I did no such thing. Unlike you, I produced actual relevant data that shows a dropoff in handguns used in robberies and homicides. Unlike you, I did not claim a cause. In other words, unlike you, I addressed the issue with relevant data and made no handwaved claim.

Claiming it's relevant doesn't make it so. You need data that shows the trend line before and after, yours does not.

Claiming the data is not relevant does not make it so. I presented relevant data - you did not. You have not shown anything except your willingness to respond to straw men.

 

[Derec]

No charges in Alton Sterling case.
No charges to be filed against officers in Alton Sterling death, Louisiana attorney general says
Most likely the correct decision.

 

[Bronzeage]

No charges in Alton Sterling case.
No charges to be filed against officers in Alton Sterling death, Louisiana attorney general says
Most likely the correct decision.

It's a straightforward case of a police officer placing himself in danger, and then using deadly force to extricate himself from the danger.

If this were an altercation between three civilians which ended in the death of one of them, with all actions being exactly as recorded on the videos, someone would be on trial for murder. Since police are allowed to act in this way, the Attorney General has declined to press charges. There is nothing correct here.

It's a failure of police training and policy. Whether anyone is held accountable for this death, remains to be seen.

One thing is certain. In a society such as ours, where guns are easy to obtain, and anyone is likely to have a gun, it does not make a policeman one bit safer, if the public believes a policeman will shoot first and ask questions later.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No charges in Alton Sterling case.
No charges to be filed against officers in Alton Sterling death, Louisiana attorney general says
Most likely the correct decision.

It's a straightforward case of a police officer placing himself in danger, and then using deadly force to extricate himself from the danger.

If this were an altercation between three civilians which ended in the death of one of them, with all actions being exactly as recorded on the videos, someone would be on trial for murder. Since police are allowed to act in this way, the Attorney General has declined to press charges. There is nothing correct here.

It's a failure of police training and policy. Whether anyone is held accountable for this death, remains to be seen.

One thing is certain. In a society such as ours, where guns are easy to obtain, and anyone is likely to have a gun, it does not make a policeman one bit safer, if the public believes a policeman will shoot first and ask questions later.

Except it would be impossible for the police to do their jobs if they were held to the civilian standard. They almost always are the ones to initiate the confrontation, it's an inherent part of their job. To remove that protection would mean anybody could kill an officer trying to arrest them with impunity.

 

[LordKiran]

No charges in Alton Sterling case.
No charges to be filed against officers in Alton Sterling death, Louisiana attorney general says
Most likely the correct decision.

It's a straightforward case of a police officer placing himself in danger, and then using deadly force to extricate himself from the danger.

If this were an altercation between three civilians which ended in the death of one of them, with all actions being exactly as recorded on the videos, someone would be on trial for murder. Since police are allowed to act in this way, the Attorney General has declined to press charges. There is nothing correct here.

It's a failure of police training and policy. Whether anyone is held accountable for this death, remains to be seen.

One thing is certain. In a society such as ours, where guns are easy to obtain, and anyone is likely to have a gun, it does not make a policeman one bit safer, if the public believes a policeman will shoot first and ask questions later.

Except it would be impossible for the police to do their jobs if they were held to the civilian standard. They almost always are the ones to initiate the confrontation, it's an inherent part of their job. To remove that protection would mean anybody could kill an officer trying to arrest them with impunity.

Loren I really don't like not liking you. I really wish you wouldn't make it so easy for me with authoritarian apologetics like this. Police should be above the law? Yeah I think no.

Nononononononononononononononononononononononononono.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Except it would be impossible for the police to do their jobs if they were held to the civilian standard. They almost always are the ones to initiate the confrontation, it's an inherent part of their job. To remove that protection would mean anybody could kill an officer trying to arrest them with impunity.

Loren I really don't like not liking you. I really wish you wouldn't make it so easy for me with authoritarian apologetics like this. Police should be above the law? Yeah I think no.

Nononononononononononononononononononononononononono.

Instead of complaining that I'm an authoritarian, how about addressing the actual issue?

How do you propose the police do their jobs when the criminal is free to shoot them if the cops try to arrest him? Apply some reason to the issue, not emotion!

It's not a liberal fantasyland where if you look hard enough there's always a perfect solution to the problem.

 

[laughing dog]

How do you propose the police do their jobs when the criminal is free to shoot them if the cops try to arrest him?

Neither Mr. Sterling nor Mr. Clark nor Tamir Rice were going to shoot anyone, so why not take your advice and Apply some reason to the issue, not emotion! Applying the civilian standard would not make the work of the police officer impossible. Yes, it would make it more risky.

It's not a liberal fantasyland where if you look hard enough there's always a perfect solution to the problem.

It does not require fantasyland thinking to insist the police show a bit more restraint before killing a suspect - just a bit of common sense and human decency.

 

[LordKiran]

Except it would be impossible for the police to do their jobs if they were held to the civilian standard. They almost always are the ones to initiate the confrontation, it's an inherent part of their job. To remove that protection would mean anybody could kill an officer trying to arrest them with impunity.

Loren I really don't like not liking you. I really wish you wouldn't make it so easy for me with authoritarian apologetics like this. Police should be above the law? Yeah I think no.

Nononononononononononononononononononononononononono.

Instead of complaining that I'm an authoritarian, how about addressing the actual issue?

How do you propose the police do their jobs when the criminal is free to shoot them if the cops try to arrest him? Apply some reason to the issue, not emotion!

It's not a liberal fantasyland where if you look hard enough there's always a perfect solution to the problem.

Hey Loren. I don't know if you ever got this, but the reason cops are supposed to be so highly venerated within our society in the first place is because they are EXPENDABLE in the pursuit of a safe and peaceful society. If you undermine that idea on two fronts of "A cop's job is to get home safely. Fuck the rest." you not only remove the reason for venerating cops but also the reason we employ them to begin with.


Cops are expendable.
Fire Fighters are expendable.
Soldiers are expendable.

This is why we honor them. Not for their service. For their sacrifice. If you aren't man enough to die for the nation then you deserve no honors from me. Honors are for the brave and noble-hearted. Not for cowards and cravens who shoot first and ask second.

 

[Bronzeage]

No charges in Alton Sterling case.
No charges to be filed against officers in Alton Sterling death, Louisiana attorney general says
Most likely the correct decision.

It's a straightforward case of a police officer placing himself in danger, and then using deadly force to extricate himself from the danger.

If this were an altercation between three civilians which ended in the death of one of them, with all actions being exactly as recorded on the videos, someone would be on trial for murder. Since police are allowed to act in this way, the Attorney General has declined to press charges. There is nothing correct here.

It's a failure of police training and policy. Whether anyone is held accountable for this death, remains to be seen.

One thing is certain. In a society such as ours, where guns are easy to obtain, and anyone is likely to have a gun, it does not make a policeman one bit safer, if the public believes a policeman will shoot first and ask questions later.

Except it would be impossible for the police to do their jobs if they were held to the civilian standard. They almost always are the ones to initiate the confrontation, it's an inherent part of their job. To remove that protection would mean anybody could kill an officer trying to arrest them with impunity.

You do not understand this situation. The reason the police were there is they suspected Alton Sterling had a gun on his person. They got into close physical contact, with a man who they thought had a gun. This made one of them feel so much danger, he shot Sterling in the chest, to end the threat.

The police officer crafted the circumstances which made it legal to kill a person. When we grant someone special powers, such as the the power to shoot people as a part of their job, we must also hold them to higher standards, not lower ones.

 

[fast]

Instead of complaining that I'm an authoritarian, how about addressing the actual issue?

How do you propose the police do their jobs when the criminal is free to shoot them if the cops try to arrest him? Apply some reason to the issue, not emotion!

It's not a liberal fantasyland where if you look hard enough there's always a perfect solution to the problem.

Hey Loren. I don't know if you ever got this, but the reason cops are supposed to be so highly venerated within our society in the first place is because they are EXPENDABLE in the pursuit of a safe and peaceful society. If you undermine that idea on two fronts of "A cop's job is to get home safely. Fuck the rest." you not only remove the reason for venerating cops but also the reason we employ them to begin with.


Cops are expendable.
Fire Fighters are expendable.
Soldiers are expendable.

This is why we honor them. Not for their service. For their sacrifice. If you aren't man enough to die for the nation then you deserve no honors from me. Honors are for the brave and noble-hearted. Not for cowards and cravens who shoot first and ask second.

While there hopefully is a word that I may find appropriate to characterize the brave and noble-hearted, somehow I find "expendable" not to be the word I'd readily choose.

 

[LordKiran]

Instead of complaining that I'm an authoritarian, how about addressing the actual issue?

How do you propose the police do their jobs when the criminal is free to shoot them if the cops try to arrest him? Apply some reason to the issue, not emotion!

It's not a liberal fantasyland where if you look hard enough there's always a perfect solution to the problem.

Hey Loren. I don't know if you ever got this, but the reason cops are supposed to be so highly venerated within our society in the first place is because they are EXPENDABLE in the pursuit of a safe and peaceful society. If you undermine that idea on two fronts of "A cop's job is to get home safely. Fuck the rest." you not only remove the reason for venerating cops but also the reason we employ them to begin with.


Cops are expendable.
Fire Fighters are expendable.
Soldiers are expendable.

This is why we honor them. Not for their service. For their sacrifice. If you aren't man enough to die for the nation then you deserve no honors from me. Honors are for the brave and noble-hearted. Not for cowards and cravens who shoot first and ask second.

While there hopefully is a word that I may find appropriate to characterize the brave and noble-hearted, somehow I find "expendable" not to be the word I'd readily choose.

I use words because they're accurate, not strictly because they conform to the sensibilities of others. Facts are, cops are expendable. It's their willingness to die for others that makes them admirable. If they can't do that then they're thin blooded honor-less cowards unworthy of the respect their position entails. Hate to be a grumpy gus and piss off the blue-lives crowd but those who can't do, don't belong. End of story.