9
9
0
From "The Guardian"
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/09/the-counted-police-killings-us-vs-other-countries
By the numbers: US police kill more in days than other countries do in years
It’s rather difficult to compare data from different time periods, according to different methodologies, across different parts of the world, and still come to definitive conclusions.
But now that we have built The Counted, a definitive record of people killed by police in the US this year, at least there is some accountability in America – even if data from the rest of the world is still catching up.
It is undeniable that police in the US often contend with much more violent situations and more heavily armed individuals than police in other developed democratic societies. Still, looking at our data for the US against admittedly less reliable information on police killings elsewhere paints a dramatic portrait, and one that resonates with protests that have gone global since a killing last year in Ferguson, Missouri: the US is not just some outlier in terms of police violence when compared with countries of similar economic and political standing.
America is the outlier – and this is what a crisis looks like.
EDITORIAL COMMENT:- Do you agree with The Guardian's characterization of (roughly) 350 deaths per year (that's roughly 0.000097% of the US population) as a "crisis"?
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/09/the-counted-police-killings-us-vs-other-countries
By the numbers: US police kill more in days than other countries do in years
It’s rather difficult to compare data from different time periods, according to different methodologies, across different parts of the world, and still come to definitive conclusions.
But now that we have built The Counted, a definitive record of people killed by police in the US this year, at least there is some accountability in America – even if data from the rest of the world is still catching up.
It is undeniable that police in the US often contend with much more violent situations and more heavily armed individuals than police in other developed democratic societies. Still, looking at our data for the US against admittedly less reliable information on police killings elsewhere paints a dramatic portrait, and one that resonates with protests that have gone global since a killing last year in Ferguson, Missouri: the US is not just some outlier in terms of police violence when compared with countries of similar economic and political standing.
America is the outlier – and this is what a crisis looks like.
EDITORIAL COMMENT:- Do you agree with The Guardian's characterization of (roughly) 350 deaths per year (that's roughly 0.000097% of the US population) as a "crisis"?
Firearms and Guns
Crime
Police
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 29
11
11
0
This is a really shoddy piece of hit journalism. They would have been far more honest had they compared "unjustified police shootings" in the US to other countries. In many cases, most cases, law enforcement is engaging an armed felon bent on killing them and/or others.
They use the shooting in Ferguson as an example of a police shooting. I think the cop was cleared on that one too.
Comparing the U.S. to countries like Finland and Iceland (and others) without any analysis on the level of crime cops might face is disingenuous at best. IF the crime rate in California is 5X what it is in Canada (for example) then those numbers are far closer than this story reflects.
The Guardian is not exactly a journalistic bastion of integrity and fair story writing.
They use the shooting in Ferguson as an example of a police shooting. I think the cop was cleared on that one too.
Comparing the U.S. to countries like Finland and Iceland (and others) without any analysis on the level of crime cops might face is disingenuous at best. IF the crime rate in California is 5X what it is in Canada (for example) then those numbers are far closer than this story reflects.
The Guardian is not exactly a journalistic bastion of integrity and fair story writing.
(11)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
What's fun is to look at police shooting rates for other large countries with high levels of diversity (Brazil is a good example) and it looks like a warzone compared to the US. But ya know, pick whichever numbers support your narrative and ignore the rest....good 'ol Guardian.
(2)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
CPT (Join to see) - Lieutenant; Good point and that's exactly why I asked "Is there a REAL problem ...".
The next question is "Is the perception that there is a problem the REAL problem?" - think along the lines of "The FACTS are that violent crime rates are declining - the PERCEPTION is that violent crime rates are rising. Why the difference and who benefits?".
The next question is "Is the perception that there is a problem the REAL problem?" - think along the lines of "The FACTS are that violent crime rates are declining - the PERCEPTION is that violent crime rates are rising. Why the difference and who benefits?".
(1)
(0)
MSgt (Join to see)
Cpl, I agree with you. The information and data uses does not really show the proof people want to see or think they see. Comparing Canada to California is a bit absurd.
(0)
(0)
8
8
0
I think unless you are eye witness to an event the fact are hard to get. Look at what happened in Missouri - a cop who later was found to just be doing his job was found to be in the right, yet the press, people, news media, politicians all had him guilty before all the facts were in. I'm sure there are instances where cops are wrong, but we are dealing with humans. Just think what the country would be like with out the "thin blue line"? These officers put their lives on the line every day so people can some what have some peace. As long as the criminal element is out there the cops need to be on the job. Plain and simple.
(8)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
SGM Mikel Dawson - Sergeant Major; Thank you for your input.
I agree that - on a case by case basis - it's difficult to make a determination on individual cases because we don't actually have enough information.
However, don't the numbers seem to indicate that there is "something" out of whack (from the type of society we would all like to live in)? [I'm asking that question WITHOUT indicating what it might be that is out of whack - or even if anything is out of whack.]
PS - You might want to take a look at the latitude that the courts grant to LEOs - latitude which isn't available to you or me.
I agree that - on a case by case basis - it's difficult to make a determination on individual cases because we don't actually have enough information.
However, don't the numbers seem to indicate that there is "something" out of whack (from the type of society we would all like to live in)? [I'm asking that question WITHOUT indicating what it might be that is out of whack - or even if anything is out of whack.]
PS - You might want to take a look at the latitude that the courts grant to LEOs - latitude which isn't available to you or me.
(0)
(0)
SGM Mikel Dawson
Sir, of course there's something out of whack! Look at the way our society has changed. Look at the disrespect shown to school teachers, anyone of authority. So many people are so busy trying to keep up with the Jones', the core family life values, life is where it begins.
Accepting responsibility for your actions. It's always someone's fault. Also perception - we all know depending on how thing are viewed everyone will see things different. And then there's that 5 minutes of fame some people want to get on TV and will say anything to get there. Missouri, good case in point. How many people lied and got the ball rolling. Instant media - how are facts blown way out of line by instant media?
Also I don't believe you can justly compare countries. For one thing police officers in England are not allowed to carry weapons. They must call for a special weapons team. No other country in the world has the 2nd amendment right we got. Oh, how come I never seen any fact on African countries? Also where were the fact on Russia, Middle Eastern countries? The laws and societies of the countries listed are very different than the States. Now when will someone do a real fact finding mission.
Accepting responsibility for your actions. It's always someone's fault. Also perception - we all know depending on how thing are viewed everyone will see things different. And then there's that 5 minutes of fame some people want to get on TV and will say anything to get there. Missouri, good case in point. How many people lied and got the ball rolling. Instant media - how are facts blown way out of line by instant media?
Also I don't believe you can justly compare countries. For one thing police officers in England are not allowed to carry weapons. They must call for a special weapons team. No other country in the world has the 2nd amendment right we got. Oh, how come I never seen any fact on African countries? Also where were the fact on Russia, Middle Eastern countries? The laws and societies of the countries listed are very different than the States. Now when will someone do a real fact finding mission.
(4)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
SGM Mikel Dawson Good point and that's exactly why I asked "Is there a REAL problem ...".
The next question is "Is the perception that there is a problem the REAL problem?" - think along the lines of "The FACTS are that violent crime rates are declining - the PERCEPTION is that violent crime rates are rising. Why the difference and who benefits?".
The next question is "Is the perception that there is a problem the REAL problem?" - think along the lines of "The FACTS are that violent crime rates are declining - the PERCEPTION is that violent crime rates are rising. Why the difference and who benefits?".
(0)
(0)
MSgt (Join to see)
Anyone can armchair quarterback something they had no part in or even have a basic understanding on how to deal with/react to.
No one seems to care about Officer Safety. Officer Safety=Public Safety
No one seems to care about Officer Safety. Officer Safety=Public Safety
(1)
(0)
6
6
0
If you look at the first graphic it compares fatal police shootings of a country whose police don't carry firearms to a country whose police do carry firearms. In fact there are several countries listed where the police don't carry firearms.
And it also compared the entire country of Iceland, to the city of Stockton. If people don't live within 40 miles of each other than of course the rate would be much lower.
There may well be a problem, but I am more inclined to think that it's because criminals are more heavily armed and police respond in kind.
I don't think there is enough information to decide from this article.
And it also compared the entire country of Iceland, to the city of Stockton. If people don't live within 40 miles of each other than of course the rate would be much lower.
There may well be a problem, but I am more inclined to think that it's because criminals are more heavily armed and police respond in kind.
I don't think there is enough information to decide from this article.
(6)
(0)
PO3 Joseph Wieck
COL Ted Mc - It has taken me a bit to get to a PC (I am travelling out of the country for work). Here are the references of the studies done that I am citing in my earlier post.
References
FBI. (2010). Expanded Homicide Data. Retrieved from http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded/expandhomicidemain
FBI. (2010). Violent Crime. Retrieved from http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/violent-crime
Gius, M. (2009). The effect of Gun Ownership Rates on Homicide Rates: A State-Level Analysis. Applied Economics Letters, 16(16-18), 1687-1690.
Gov.UK. (December 17, 2012). Knives: the laws on buying and carrying. Retrieved from http://https://www.gov.uk/find-out-if-i-can-buy-or-carry-a-knife
Kates, D. B., & Mauser, G. (January 1, 2007). WOULD BANNING FIREARMS REDUCE MURDER AND SUICIDE?. Retrieved from http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
Koper, C. S., & Roth, J. A. (2002). The Impact of the 1994 Federal assault Weapons Ban on Gun Markets: An Assessment of Short-Term Primary and Secondary Market Effects. Journal Of Quantitative Criminology, 18(3), 239-266.
Kwon, I.-W., Scott, B., Safranski, S. and Bae, M. (1997)The effectiveness of gun control laws: multivariatestatistical analysis, American Journal of Economics andSociology, 56, 41–50.
Moorhouse, J. C., & Wanner, B. (2006). Does Gun Control Reduce Crime or Does Crime Increase Gun Control? Cato Journal, 26(1), 103-124
In each of those listed above, with the exception of Guis, the data shows that overall we are safer with guns in the hands of law abiding citizens. The Kates and Mauser study from Harvard Law is very telling in the conclusion. Guis cites Moorhouse and Wanner, as well, but states that their formula is flawed. He give no reason for his position, just that it is "Obviously wrong". I included this as a requirement of this particular paper was that I had to have at least 1 apposing viewpoint which I had to answer/rebut. This was the only apposing viewpoint I could find that was presented as a study. His information was just made up numbers because he felt they were right. An example is that the original study did a binary of a 1 or 0 for gun ownership in the calculation. Guis stated that was obviously wrong as it should be 0 for no gun ownership and 214 for ownership. Doing that makes the results much different, but he give no justification why a yes no question gets a non yes no calculation.
References
FBI. (2010). Expanded Homicide Data. Retrieved from http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded/expandhomicidemain
FBI. (2010). Violent Crime. Retrieved from http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/violent-crime
Gius, M. (2009). The effect of Gun Ownership Rates on Homicide Rates: A State-Level Analysis. Applied Economics Letters, 16(16-18), 1687-1690.
Gov.UK. (December 17, 2012). Knives: the laws on buying and carrying. Retrieved from http://https://www.gov.uk/find-out-if-i-can-buy-or-carry-a-knife
Kates, D. B., & Mauser, G. (January 1, 2007). WOULD BANNING FIREARMS REDUCE MURDER AND SUICIDE?. Retrieved from http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
Koper, C. S., & Roth, J. A. (2002). The Impact of the 1994 Federal assault Weapons Ban on Gun Markets: An Assessment of Short-Term Primary and Secondary Market Effects. Journal Of Quantitative Criminology, 18(3), 239-266.
Kwon, I.-W., Scott, B., Safranski, S. and Bae, M. (1997)The effectiveness of gun control laws: multivariatestatistical analysis, American Journal of Economics andSociology, 56, 41–50.
Moorhouse, J. C., & Wanner, B. (2006). Does Gun Control Reduce Crime or Does Crime Increase Gun Control? Cato Journal, 26(1), 103-124
In each of those listed above, with the exception of Guis, the data shows that overall we are safer with guns in the hands of law abiding citizens. The Kates and Mauser study from Harvard Law is very telling in the conclusion. Guis cites Moorhouse and Wanner, as well, but states that their formula is flawed. He give no reason for his position, just that it is "Obviously wrong". I included this as a requirement of this particular paper was that I had to have at least 1 apposing viewpoint which I had to answer/rebut. This was the only apposing viewpoint I could find that was presented as a study. His information was just made up numbers because he felt they were right. An example is that the original study did a binary of a 1 or 0 for gun ownership in the calculation. Guis stated that was obviously wrong as it should be 0 for no gun ownership and 214 for ownership. Doing that makes the results much different, but he give no justification why a yes no question gets a non yes no calculation.
(0)
(0)
PO3 Joseph Wieck
COL Ted Mc - BTW, I really enjoy the debate back and forth on this. It is enjoyable to debate with someone who isn't full of rhetoric and venom towards the subject.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
PO3 Joseph Wieck - PO; My position of "Gun Control" is four-fold [1] It won't work. [2] It's silly. [3] It won't work. and [4] It's silly.
In an era of rising violence, "gun crime is going to rise".
In an era of criminals being killed in self-defence, criminals are going to move to safer locations.
The way to lower violent crime is to lower the acceptability of violent crime - banning guns simply won't do it.
After I've had a chance to go through you references, I'll try and get back to you - but I have to go shooting this weekend so I might be a bit delayed.
In an era of rising violence, "gun crime is going to rise".
In an era of criminals being killed in self-defence, criminals are going to move to safer locations.
The way to lower violent crime is to lower the acceptability of violent crime - banning guns simply won't do it.
After I've had a chance to go through you references, I'll try and get back to you - but I have to go shooting this weekend so I might be a bit delayed.
(1)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
PO3 Joseph Wieck - PO; I've had a chance to go through your references and can make some observations:
[1] IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA increased gun ownership appears to have a correlation with a decrease in the crime rate.
[2] IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA the PERCEIVED level of crime has been rising while the ACTUAL level of crime has been decreasing.
[3] People act on their perceptions - which don't necessarily correlate to reality.
[4] People think that owning a gun will decrease crime.
[5] When more people own guns while crime is dropping in any event, those people who support gun ownership will have the perception that it is the increase in gun ownership that is driving crime rates down.
[6] The strongest correlating factor to an increase in crime is a decrease in "perceived socio-economic wealth".
["Moreover, there is not insubstantial evidence that in the United States widespread gun availability has helped reduce murder and other violent crime rates. On closer analysis, however, this evidence appears uniquely applicable to the United States."]
["But he more plausible explanation for many nations having widespread gun ownership with low violence is that these nations never had high murder and violence rates and so never had occasion to enact severe anti‐gun laws. On the other hand, in nations that have experienced high and rising violent crime rates, the legislative reaction has generally been to enact increasingly severe antigun laws."]
["Thus both sides of the gun prohibition debate are likely wrong in viewing the availability of guns as a major factor in the incidence of murder in any particular society."]
["To reiterate, the determinants of murder and suicide are basic social, economic, and cultural factors, not the prevalence of some form of deadly mechanism."]
[All quoted from your references.]
and draw a few conclusions:
[A] The people who say that increased gun ownership will lead to a decrease in crime don't know what they are talking about (and neither do the people who say that increased gun ownership will lead to an increase in crime).
[B] The problem is NOT a "Gun Problem", it is a "Social Problem" and it can only be fixed by fixing the underlying socio-economic factors.
and
[C] In a society where shooting people is considered culturally acceptable, people will shoot people.
That last may seem like a trite remark, but it just happens to be reality. If you don't want people to shoot people, make shooting people socially unacceptable. [It worked for cigarettes and they were killing more people than guns were.]
BTW, you have to read Mauser carefully because he has a knack of saying things that are true in such a manner as they sound like they are the things that he would like to be true.
AS another poster remarked "Perception is reality.".
[1] IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA increased gun ownership appears to have a correlation with a decrease in the crime rate.
[2] IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA the PERCEIVED level of crime has been rising while the ACTUAL level of crime has been decreasing.
[3] People act on their perceptions - which don't necessarily correlate to reality.
[4] People think that owning a gun will decrease crime.
[5] When more people own guns while crime is dropping in any event, those people who support gun ownership will have the perception that it is the increase in gun ownership that is driving crime rates down.
[6] The strongest correlating factor to an increase in crime is a decrease in "perceived socio-economic wealth".
["Moreover, there is not insubstantial evidence that in the United States widespread gun availability has helped reduce murder and other violent crime rates. On closer analysis, however, this evidence appears uniquely applicable to the United States."]
["But he more plausible explanation for many nations having widespread gun ownership with low violence is that these nations never had high murder and violence rates and so never had occasion to enact severe anti‐gun laws. On the other hand, in nations that have experienced high and rising violent crime rates, the legislative reaction has generally been to enact increasingly severe antigun laws."]
["Thus both sides of the gun prohibition debate are likely wrong in viewing the availability of guns as a major factor in the incidence of murder in any particular society."]
["To reiterate, the determinants of murder and suicide are basic social, economic, and cultural factors, not the prevalence of some form of deadly mechanism."]
[All quoted from your references.]
and draw a few conclusions:
[A] The people who say that increased gun ownership will lead to a decrease in crime don't know what they are talking about (and neither do the people who say that increased gun ownership will lead to an increase in crime).
[B] The problem is NOT a "Gun Problem", it is a "Social Problem" and it can only be fixed by fixing the underlying socio-economic factors.
and
[C] In a society where shooting people is considered culturally acceptable, people will shoot people.
That last may seem like a trite remark, but it just happens to be reality. If you don't want people to shoot people, make shooting people socially unacceptable. [It worked for cigarettes and they were killing more people than guns were.]
BTW, you have to read Mauser carefully because he has a knack of saying things that are true in such a manner as they sound like they are the things that he would like to be true.
AS another poster remarked "Perception is reality.".
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google