Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #301  
Old 10-29-2018, 12:04 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
I can agree that more data is better than less data, that is completely separate from the question of whether we have enough data to start drawing conclusions.

And we do have enough data to start drawing conclusions. The data was sifted to make sure that we only counted jurisdictions that provided complete data. There is no reason to believe that these jurisdictions are any different than anywhere else. We may not have the entire universe of data, but we are no longer at the "we don't really know" stage.
I think there's plenty of reason to suspect that cooperative jurisdictions might have different policies/practices/cultures than non-cooperative jurisdictions. Maybe there's a reason they're happy to share their data... and maybe there's a reason the other ones refuse to do so.

That's just one concern I have. There are many others.
  #302  
Old 10-29-2018, 12:09 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,399
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Another important thing to consider -- regardless of race, American police kill tons of people. From some back of the envelope math I did in a previous thread, American police kill over 10,000 times as many people as UK police on a per capita basis. Sure, there are more murders and more guns in America, but on a per capita basis those differences are less than a factor of 10. That can't reasonably explain a difference in police killings of over 10,000.

So just as important (or maybe even more so) as possible racial bias in shootings is just the incredibly high rate of overall killings by police in America. It seems reasonable to suspect that maybe American police culture, practice, and policy lead to more usage of deadly force than necesary.
I agree. Cops kill too much. We need more non-lethal methods of neutralizing threats. But they do not appear to be disproportionately killing blacks (when all other things are equal). And THAT has been the source of considerable outrage from places like BLM.

BTW I don't think your math of the 10,000::1 is accurate. You would need to conclude that UK law enforcement only killed 28 people before 2000. I suspect that cops in this country use more unnecessary force than other countries. But I suspect that even a small elevation of the risk of police death has a fairly large effect on the use of force, particularly deadly force.

In any event back to the OP. Accusations of racism/sexism/bigotry are abused.
  #303  
Old 10-29-2018, 12:11 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,399
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I think there's plenty of reason to suspect that cooperative jurisdictions might have different policies/practices/cultures than non-cooperative jurisdictions. Maybe there's a reason they're happy to share their data... and maybe there's a reason the other ones refuse to do so.

That's just one concern I have. There are many others.
I suspect there will be a never ending parade of "concerns" that are not much different than the concerns of anti-vaxxers, global warming deniers, GMO alarmists, etc.
  #304  
Old 10-29-2018, 12:18 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
I suspect there will be a never ending parade of "concerns" that are not much different than the concerns of anti-vaxxers, global warming deniers, GMO alarmists, etc.
My suspicions must be too dangerous for you, then.

We should probably stop here; I attempted to step away from the silliness, but you decided to go back to it in this post.
  #305  
Old 10-29-2018, 03:15 PM
magellan01 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 16,570
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Another important thing to consider -- regardless of race, American police kill tons of people. From some back of the envelope math I did in a previous thread, American police kill over 10,000 times as many people as UK police on a per capita basis. Sure, there are more murders and more guns in America, but on a per capita basis those differences are less than a factor of 10. That can't reasonably explain a difference in police killings of over 10,000.

So just as important (or maybe even more so) as possible racial bias in shootings is just the incredibly high rate of overall killings by police in America. It seems reasonable to suspect that maybe American police culture, practice, and policy lead to more usage of deadly force than necesary.
Seems like one would need to know the number of people killed in the U.S. by cops who were armed vs unarmed, and then compare those numbers to the UK.
  #306  
Old 10-29-2018, 03:46 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by magellan01 View Post
Seems like one would need to know the number of people killed in the U.S. by cops who were armed vs unarmed, and then compare those numbers to the UK.
I don't have those numbers. We could estimate - the US has, IIRC, about 5 times as many guns, per capita, as the UK. We probably have about the same number of knives, and other melee weapons, per capita. So we could expect that American suspects would have about 5 times the likelihood of being armed as UK suspects.

Which is pretty different than 10,000.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #307  
Old 10-29-2018, 10:53 PM
magellan01 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 16,570
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I don't have those numbers. We could estimate - the US has, IIRC, about 5 times as many guns, per capita, as the UK. We probably have about the same number of knives, and other melee weapons, per capita. So we could expect that American suspects would have about 5 times the likelihood of being armed as UK suspects.

Which is pretty different than 10,000.
That doesn't sound right First, the 5x number seems absurdly low. This Wikipedia page has the difference as 120.5 civilian firearms per 100 people in the US vs 3.79 civilian firearms per 100 people in the UK. That's about 32X!

But again, to draw any comparison we need to know the number of people killed by cops that were armed. Without those numbers the conclusions you're trying to draw are just wild guesses.
  #308  
Old 10-30-2018, 03:23 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by magellan01 View Post
That doesn't sound right First, the 5x number seems absurdly low. This Wikipedia page has the difference as 120.5 civilian firearms per 100 people in the US vs 3.79 civilian firearms per 100 people in the UK. That's about 32X!

But again, to draw any comparison we need to know the number of people killed by cops that were armed. Without those numbers the conclusions you're trying to draw are just wild guesses.
Okay, 32X. But that wouldn't be a "wild guess", it'd be an educated guess. It could be more or less than 32X, but the idea that it could be anything close to as high as 10,000X sounds totally nuts to me.
  #309  
Old 10-30-2018, 10:37 AM
magellan01 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 16,570
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Okay, 32X. But that wouldn't be a "wild guess", it'd be an educated guess. It could be more or less than 32X, but the idea that it could be anything close to as high as 10,000X sounds totally nuts to me.
Yes, you were WAY off. But, AGAIN, you can't just look at deaths by police, you need to look at deaths by police where they were confronted with an armed suspect.

From The Atlantic:

Quote:
Of the 1,146 and 1,092 victims of police violence in 2015 and 2016, respectively, the authors found 52 percent were white, 26 percent were black, and 17 percent were Hispanic.

...

In 2017, police killed 19 unarmed black males, down from 36 in 2015, according to The Washington Post. The Post analyses also showed that police usually use fatal force against people armed with knives or guns. (The FBI counted 435 “justifiable homicides” by police officers in 2016, and in 429 of the cases, the person had a firearm when killed.)
Do you have similar info from the UK to come to the conclusion you have? And here's an interesting stat that has relevance on what cops are up against in the US:
Number of cops killed by guns in the US in 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018: 177

Number of cops killed by guns in the UK in 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018: 0

Also, I don't know where your getting your 10,000X number. Can you explain?
  #310  
Old 10-30-2018, 11:00 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by magellan01 View Post
Yes, you were WAY off. But, AGAIN, you can't just look at deaths by police, you need to look at deaths by police where they were confronted with an armed suspect.

From The Atlantic:

Do you have similar info from the UK to come to the conclusion you have? And here's an interesting stat that has relevance on what cops are up against in the US:
Number of cops killed by guns in the US in 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018: 177

Number of cops killed by guns in the UK in 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018: 0
Also, I don't know where your getting your 10,000X number. Can you explain?
The 10,000X (actually 14,000X, per capita) comes from a back-of-the-envelope calculation, linked in the post you quoted in post #305.

No, I don't have more details about those shot by police in the two countries, I was just looking at the total numbers. And the utterly massive discrepancy, which completely swamps (by several orders of magnitude) any differences in per capita crime or firearm ownership, struck me as notable.

But it's a back-of-the-envelope calculation, not a detailed study, so feel free to dismiss it if you like. I'm certainly not going to go to the mat to defend it.
  #311  
Old 10-30-2018, 11:09 AM
magellan01 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 16,570
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
The 10,000X (actually 14,000X, per capita) comes from a back-of-the-envelope calculation, linked in the post you quoted in post #305.

No, I don't have more details about those shot by police in the two countries, I was just looking at the total numbers. And the utterly massive discrepancy, which completely swamps (by several orders of magnitude) any differences in per capita crime or firearm ownership, struck me as notable.

But it's a back-of-the-envelope calculation, not a detailed study, so feel free to dismiss it if you like. I'm certainly not going to go to the mat to defend it.
Consider it dismissed. That's some far-fetched guesstimating-squinting-hoping and then guesstimating again. And I'd suggest that you not cite it again as you waste people's time thinking that it has any validity whatsoever. Because it doesn't.

Hopefully the numbers I cited will give you pause before assuming the worst about the US and or cops in the US. Somehow, I'm not so hopeful on that.
  #312  
Old 10-30-2018, 11:17 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by magellan01 View Post
Consider it dismissed. That's some far-fetched guesstimating-squinting-hoping and then guesstimating again. And I'd suggest that you not cite it again as you waste people's time thinking that it has any validity whatsoever. Because it doesn't.
LOL. Sorry that taking a look at big numbers and broad trends (and my calculation was indeed based on real historical statistics), just to see if anything is interesting, causes you so much heartache. I still find it interesting.

Quote:
Hopefully the numbers I cited will give you pause before assuming the worst about the US and or cops in the US. Somehow, I'm not so hopeful on that.
I don't "assume the worst", so nothing to worry about here. Thanks for the cites (which don't refute anything I've said, aside from my guess on per-capita guns in the UK).

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 10-30-2018 at 11:18 AM.
  #313  
Old 10-30-2018, 11:32 AM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,057
Quote:
Originally Posted by magellan01 View Post
Number of cops killed by guns in the UK in 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018: 0[/INDENT]
Any thoughts on what leads to such a dramatic lack of British police officers being killed by guns?
  #314  
Old 10-30-2018, 01:29 PM
magellan01 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 16,570
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Any thoughts on what leads to such a dramatic lack of British police officers being killed by guns?
It's a mystery. No one knows. I think the leading theory has something to do with a link between dental hygiene and poor eyesight which makes the British bad shots.
  #315  
Old 10-30-2018, 02:23 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,057
Quote:
Originally Posted by magellan01 View Post
It's a mystery. No one knows. I think the leading theory has something to do with a link between dental hygiene and poor eyesight which makes the British bad shots.
Ah...thanks. I thought it might have something to do with gun laws, but I guess I was mistaken.
  #316  
Old 11-01-2018, 08:17 AM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,399
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
My suspicions must be too dangerous for you, then.

We should probably stop here; I attempted to step away from the silliness, but you decided to go back to it in this post.
Your suspicions are not dangerous. Its the practice of presenting "suspicions" as facts that is dangerous.

I don't see what is silly about comparing you to a global warming denialist, anti-vaxxer of GMO alarmist. it's what you are. You are willing to go where the facts lead you but only so long as they lead you where you want to go.

You hold on to that small shred of doubt that always remains in science and act as if we don't really have any idea of what the answer is so your position is just as well supported as any other position. Its not. Your position has a calculation done by a partisan group with an agenda. My position has two peer reviewed studies, one by an award winning Harvard economist.

To be fair we do not have comprehensive data yet but 3000+ data points for a study is probably going to get us pretty close.
  #317  
Old 11-01-2018, 08:20 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Your suspicions are not dangerous. Its the practice of presenting "suspicions" as facts that is dangerous.

I don't see what is silly about comparing you to a global warming denialist, anti-vaxxer of GMO alarmist. it's what you are. You are willing to go where the facts lead you but only so long as they lead you where you want to go.

You hold on to that small shred of doubt that always remains in science and act as if we don't really have any idea of what the answer is so your position is just as well supported as any other position. Its not. Your position has a calculation done by a partisan group with an agenda. My position has two peer reviewed studies, one by an award winning Harvard economist.

To be fair we do not have comprehensive data yet but 3000+ data points for a study is probably going to get us pretty close.
This is basically a "no u!" and has pretty much nothing to do with my posts, so it's probably a good place to stop.
  #318  
Old 11-01-2018, 08:47 AM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,399
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
LOL. Sorry that taking a look at big numbers and broad trends (and my calculation was indeed based on real historical statistics), just to see if anything is interesting, causes you so much heartache. I still find it interesting.
You reach that "big number" by relying on very dubious assumptions. Your "real historical data" is a wiki page that only shows 55 deaths between 1687 and 2000. I'm almost positive that this is incorrect.

It might be more accurate to look at the deaths since 2000, which seem to be better documented. ~2.5/year compared to 1200/year. That leaves us with about 400 times as many cop killings in the US compared to the UK. The USA has about 5.5 times as many people so that is a population adjusted 14 killings/year in the UK compared to ~1200/year in the US or about 90 times more. So the multiple is still staggeringly large but nowhere near the laughable 14,000 multiple you are presenting.

Have you considered that perhaps you are too attracted to big numbers. They are frequently wrong and/or deceptive. You seem eager to believe ridiculous things that align with your preconceived notions.
  #319  
Old 11-01-2018, 08:57 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
You reach that "big number" by relying on very dubious assumptions. Your "real historical data" is a wiki page that only shows 55 deaths between 1687 and 2000. I'm almost positive that this is incorrect.

It might be more accurate to look at the deaths since 2000, which seem to be better documented. ~2.5/year compared to 1200/year. That leaves us with about 400 times as many cop killings in the US compared to the UK. The USA has about 5.5 times as many people so that is a population adjusted 14 killings/year in the UK compared to ~1200/year in the US or about 90 times more. So the multiple is still staggeringly large but nowhere near the laughable 14,000 multiple you are presenting.

Have you considered that perhaps you are too attracted to big numbers. They are frequently wrong and/or deceptive. You seem eager to believe ridiculous things that align with your preconceived notions.
If I suspected you were actually interested in a discussion, rather than "gotcha" and points-scoring, I might go further with you on this. But I no longer think this is possible, so I won't. Best wishes and happiness in your life.

Maybe I'm just too dangerous.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 11-01-2018 at 08:57 AM.
  #320  
Old 11-01-2018, 09:00 AM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,399
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Ah...thanks. I thought it might have something to do with gun laws, but I guess I was mistaken.
There are all sorts of theories depending on who you listen to.

The prevailing theory is that cops are not really killed that often:

https://fee.org/articles/by-the-numb...t-to-be-a-cop/

As you can see, the spikes in police deaths have to deal with prohibition and fighting the war on drugs.

The easiest way to reduce police deaths is probably to legalize marijuana.

Gun laws might have some sort of effect. Cops are shot less frequently in places with strict gun control laws. But it cannot be the whole story. Mexico has pretty tough gun control laws and their police mortality rate makes ours look pretty rosy.
  #321  
Old 11-01-2018, 09:00 AM
magellan01 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 16,570
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Maybe I'm just too dangerous.
Maybe you're just wrong.
  #322  
Old 11-01-2018, 09:02 AM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,399
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
This is basically a "no u!" and has pretty much nothing to do with my posts, so it's probably a good place to stop.
No, its me saying "hey look at these two peer reviewed studies saying you're wrong" and you saying "but I've got an analysis done by a partisan group so its still up in the air"

I believed the same thing you believed before we had studies showing us we were wrong. but the facts changed and so did my opinion. Why didn't your opinion change with the change in facts?
  #323  
Old 11-01-2018, 09:04 AM
magellan01 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 16,570
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
You reach that "big number" by relying on very dubious assumptions. Your "real historical data" is a wiki page that only shows 55 deaths between 1687 and 2000. I'm almost positive that this is incorrect.

It might be more accurate to look at the deaths since 2000, which seem to be better documented. ~2.5/year compared to 1200/year. That leaves us with about 400 times as many cop killings in the US compared to the UK. The USA has about 5.5 times as many people so that is a population adjusted 14 killings/year in the UK compared to ~1200/year in the US or about 90 times more. So the multiple is still staggeringly large but nowhere near the laughable 14,000 multiple you are presenting.

Have you considered that perhaps you are too attracted to big numbers. They are frequently wrong and/or deceptive. You seem eager to believe ridiculous things that align with your preconceived notions.
And if the starting point is 90X, when you introduce the fact that cops in the UK have a much, much smaller chance of being killed by a gun, that 90X seems to maybe be reasonable.
  #324  
Old 11-01-2018, 09:04 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,587
It was when you quoted yourself and triumphantly claimed that Buck was saying this. That's when I realized this was just about "gotcha" and points-scoring, and too silly to continue. And some of your posts since, with so much wild mischaracterization of my views, has doubly made this clear. Sorry for continuing to drag this out for so long.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 11-01-2018 at 09:07 AM.
  #325  
Old 11-01-2018, 09:13 AM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,399
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
If I suspected you were actually interested in a discussion, rather than "gotcha" and points-scoring, I might go further with you on this. But I no longer think this is possible, so I won't. Best wishes and happiness in your life.

Maybe I'm just too dangerous.
Its not gotcha and points scoring when I prove you wrong time and time again. Frankly it wouldn't be as embarrassing for you if you simply accepted peer reviewed studies as trumping analysis by a partisan organization, this would be less embarrassing for you. Pretty much everyone other than hard core SJW CRTs considers peer reviewed studies to be better than a pro-publica analysis.

To some people, facts can be racist.
  #326  
Old 11-01-2018, 09:15 AM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,057
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
There are all sorts of theories depending on who you listen to.

The prevailing theory is that cops are not really killed that often:

https://fee.org/articles/by-the-numb...t-to-be-a-cop/
That's strange. I thought it was so dangerous to be a cop, that we have to give them the benefit of the doubt that they were so scared by a black man with a cell phone that they had to shoot him?
  #327  
Old 11-01-2018, 09:16 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Its not gotcha and points scoring when I prove you wrong time and time again. Frankly it wouldn't be as embarrassing for you if you simply accepted peer reviewed studies as trumping analysis by a partisan organization, this would be less embarrassing for you. Pretty much everyone other than hard core SJW CRTs considers peer reviewed studies to be better than a pro-publica analysis.

To some people, facts can be racist.
Congratulations for your well-declared victory! Declaring your own triumph is an amazing accomplishment. Kudos to you, and best wishes on your future endeavors. I'm sure you will declare much success in the future!
  #328  
Old 11-01-2018, 11:29 AM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,072
Why are you pro-leprosy?
  #329  
Old 11-01-2018, 12:19 PM
Kearsen is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: austin texas
Posts: 1,821
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
Why are you pro-leprosy?
Maybe I'll get called by Lord Foul to the land so I can be healed!
__________________
Kearsen
aka...RollingRock
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:48 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017