That number looks fishy to me. According to KilledByPolice.net, the grand total of people killed by police of all races for 2015 is 1,200. Abagond puts the number of unarmed blacks killed by police in 2015 at 75.
The Guardian lists 1,138 people killed by police in the US and they break it down as 578 whites, 302 blacks, 194 hispanic/latino, 27 other/unknown, 24 asian/pacific islander, and 13 native americans.
Your number for December is a little low actually.
KilledByPolice.net lists 108 as being killed by police in December. The Guardian lists 92 as being killed by police in December. Both those lists include all races.
But then again that's off topic. I never said anything about December. I just commented that jobsanger number seemed fishy and then proceded to give facts that supported my point.
Nope, that is not my point. Only time I brought up unarmed was when I mentioned Abagond's number. I would say that my points are that a) Americans are not OK with policy changes being made on falsehoods. Which is what would be happening if people agreed with your blog post based on a faulty number from Jobsanger and b) don't believe everything you read on the internet.
Just to clarify, your point reduces the loss of human life to a numerical disparity.
Brian, you say "Americans are not OK with policy changes being made on falsehoods."
So what is the magic number when the murder of non-white Americans becomes an issue worthy of policy consideration, let alone, change, Brian?
And your "b" point? Not to believe everything you read on the internet...
Of course not...
So, how about a little documentation, Brian?
"Police in the United States are killing people at a rate that would result in 1,100 fatalities by the end of this year, according to a Guardian investigation, which recorded an average of three people killed per day during the first half of 2015.
The Counted, a project working to report and crowdsource names and a series of other data on every death caused by law enforcement in the US this year, found that 547 people had been killed by the end of June."
"In contrast, Killed By Police has logged at least 91 people killed by police in the month of January alone. At least 1,106 people were killed in 2014, a number which calls into question the integrity of the FBI’s previous estimate of around 400 per year.
Unlike the independent logging done by Killed By Police, the FBI collects their statistics only from reports voluntarily given to them by law enforcement agencies. Only around 750 agencies, or 4 percent, out of 17,000 law enforcement entities across the United States offered this data to the FBI."
I did post links including the final tally by the Guardian's the Counted (which was 1138). And as of yesterday, 9 people have been killed by police in 2016.
Your documentation was an earlier report from where one of my numbers came from Chip.
Is it a bad thing when anybody dies? Yes. I have never agrued against that. I would love to see nobody die. My point was not that. But Redeye posted a number that Jobsanger has yet to say where he got his 1,015 Black People killed by police in 2015 number from (which is over 3x what others are reporting).
You and Redeye might think my point is moot but it is a valid argument. England overreacted when they instituted their gun ban over a mass shooting. Gun Violence there has gone up. Violent crimes have gone up. They even saw their gun homicide rate go up after the ban was instituted. It has gotten so bad that they are now arming police officers with handgun. Australia overreacted as well. Violent crimes have gone up as high 80% in Australia since they have banned guns. And New Zealand makes a perfect conuterbalance to Australia. Similar demographics, no gun ban, and a similar gun ownership rate at the time when Australia instituted its gun ban and guess what, the homicide rate in New Zealand is lower than Australia's.
Two examples of countries quickly reacting to a single event and it made things worse. Redeye's post was encouraging a country to quickly react to a single figure that most like was made up.
Do guns deaths need to be lowered? YES, but we need to make sure we are doing it the right way. The President used Connecticut as an example last night. But Connecticut's homicide rate fell at a lower rate than the rest of the northeastern states. Connecticut's homicide rate fell at a lower rate than the rest of the United States. The numbers by the way are: Obama quoted the numbers from 1995 to 2005 at a 40% reduction. 1995 to 2006 the reduction was 16%, 1995 to 2010 the reduction was 12.5% for Connecticut. The rest of the northeastern states were 27% and 22% repsectively. United States: 39% and 31%.
"Do guns deaths need to be lowered? YES, but we need to make sure we are doing it the right way. "
On this we can agree Brian, "the right way to lower gun deaths" is to disarm gun owners..
You said "England over reacted", but how many mass shootings have they had? The only people allowed to carry guns in England are the police. Does that prevent people from hunting? No.
I submit the reason the police shoot first and ask questions later is because everyone is walking around locked and loaded with open/conceal carry, and they don't know who is friend or foe.
The Second Amendment is enabling bad guys/gals to have easy access to guns and to do harm. It was created during a time when we didn't have an army or police force to protect and defend us from all enemies foreign and domestic.
That is a good question. How many mass shootings has happened in England?
Excluding those that were perpetuated by the military. There has been a grand total of 4 mass shootings England's history.
-3 police officers were killed in their patrol car in 1966. -16 were killed in 1987 leading to the banning of semi-automatic and pump action rifles. -18 were killed in 1996 leading to the banning of handguns with the exception of muzzle loaded and historically important ones. -12 were killed in a shooting in 2010 that took 4 hours.
England never had the murder issue the United States has had. They are now considered the most violent country in the European Union and the spikes in the rates of violence has occured since the gun ban of 1997. Between 1990 to 1996, the homicide rate in England was between 10.9 and 13 homicides per million. The homicide rate in england trended up until it's peak in 2003 at 18 homicides per million. Around that time, England added 20,000 more police officers. In 2010, the homicide rate had fallen to 11.1 homicides per million.
Yep, there was a spike in the homicide rate after the ban of handguns. And it took adding police officers to bring it under control.
12 comments:
That number looks fishy to me. According to KilledByPolice.net, the grand total of people killed by police of all races for 2015 is 1,200. Abagond puts the number of unarmed blacks killed by police in 2015 at 75.
The Guardian lists 1,138 people killed by police in the US and they break it down as 578 whites, 302 blacks, 194 hispanic/latino, 27 other/unknown, 24 asian/pacific islander, and 13 native americans.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2015/jun/01/the-counted-police-killings-us-database
91 people were killed by police in the month of December.
Your number for December is a little low actually.
KilledByPolice.net lists 108 as being killed by police in December.
The Guardian lists 92 as being killed by police in December.
Both those lists include all races.
But then again that's off topic. I never said anything about December. I just commented that jobsanger number seemed fishy and then proceded to give facts that supported my point.
Nope, that is not my point. Only time I brought up unarmed was when I mentioned Abagond's number. I would say that my points are that a) Americans are not OK with policy changes being made on falsehoods. Which is what would be happening if people agreed with your blog post based on a faulty number from Jobsanger and b) don't believe everything you read on the internet.
Your point is moot.
Brian, Redeye said your point was moot.
Just to clarify, your point reduces the loss of human life to a numerical disparity.
Brian, you say "Americans are not OK with policy changes being made on falsehoods."
So what is the magic number when the murder of non-white Americans becomes an issue worthy of policy consideration, let alone, change, Brian?
And your "b" point? Not to believe everything you read on the internet...
Of course not...
So, how about a little documentation, Brian?
"Police in the United States are killing people at a rate that would result in 1,100 fatalities by the end of this year, according to a Guardian investigation, which recorded an average of three people killed per day during the first half of 2015.
The Counted, a project working to report and crowdsource names and a series of other data on every death caused by law enforcement in the US this year, found that 547 people had been killed by the end of June."
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jul/01/us-police-killings-this-year-black-americans
Or, this...
"In contrast, Killed By Police has logged at least 91 people killed by police in the month of January alone. At least 1,106 people were killed in 2014, a number which calls into question the integrity of the FBI’s previous estimate of around 400 per year.
Unlike the independent logging done by Killed By Police, the FBI collects their statistics only from reports voluntarily given to them by law enforcement agencies. Only around 750 agencies, or 4 percent, out of 17,000 law enforcement entities across the United States offered this data to the FBI."
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/100-people-killed-police-month-2015-officers-killed-suspects/#GqyAR3AmGBci1760.99
What a hollow, shameful attempt to erase human lives murdered by police authority, Brian.
But go ahead, find some other trivial points (with links, please!) to debate
I did post links including the final tally by the Guardian's the Counted (which was 1138). And as of yesterday, 9 people have been killed by police in 2016.
Your documentation was an earlier report from where one of my numbers came from Chip.
Is it a bad thing when anybody dies? Yes. I have never agrued against that. I would love to see nobody die. My point was not that. But Redeye posted a number that Jobsanger has yet to say where he got his 1,015 Black People killed by police in 2015 number from (which is over 3x what others are reporting).
You and Redeye might think my point is moot but it is a valid argument. England overreacted when they instituted their gun ban over a mass shooting. Gun Violence there has gone up. Violent crimes have gone up. They even saw their gun homicide rate go up after the ban was instituted. It has gotten so bad that they are now arming police officers with handgun. Australia overreacted as well. Violent crimes have gone up as high 80% in Australia since they have banned guns. And New Zealand makes a perfect conuterbalance to Australia. Similar demographics, no gun ban, and a similar gun ownership rate at the time when Australia instituted its gun ban and guess what, the homicide rate in New Zealand is lower than Australia's.
Two examples of countries quickly reacting to a single event and it made things worse. Redeye's post was encouraging a country to quickly react to a single figure that most like was made up.
Do guns deaths need to be lowered? YES, but we need to make sure we are doing it the right way. The President used Connecticut as an example last night. But Connecticut's homicide rate fell at a lower rate than the rest of the northeastern states. Connecticut's homicide rate fell at a lower rate than the rest of the United States. The numbers by the way are: Obama quoted the numbers from 1995 to 2005 at a 40% reduction. 1995 to 2006 the reduction was 16%, 1995 to 2010 the reduction was 12.5% for Connecticut. The rest of the northeastern states were 27% and 22% repsectively. United States: 39% and 31%.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/01/07/obama-and-guns-eleven-false-or-misleading-claims-from-presidents-remarks-this-week.html
"Do guns deaths need to be lowered? YES, but we need to make sure we are doing it the right way. "
On this we can agree Brian, "the right way to lower gun deaths" is to disarm gun owners..
You said "England over reacted", but how many mass shootings have they had? The only people allowed to carry guns in England are the police. Does that prevent people from hunting? No.
I submit the reason the police shoot first and ask questions later is because everyone is walking around locked and loaded with open/conceal carry, and they don't know who is friend or foe.
The Second Amendment is enabling bad guys/gals to have easy access to guns and to do harm. It was created during a time when we didn't have an army or police force to protect and defend us from all enemies foreign and domestic.
That is a good question. How many mass shootings has happened in England?
Excluding those that were perpetuated by the military. There has been a grand total of 4 mass shootings England's history.
-3 police officers were killed in their patrol car in 1966.
-16 were killed in 1987 leading to the banning of semi-automatic and pump action rifles.
-18 were killed in 1996 leading to the banning of handguns with the exception of muzzle loaded and historically important ones.
-12 were killed in a shooting in 2010 that took 4 hours.
England never had the murder issue the United States has had. They are now considered the most violent country in the European Union and the spikes in the rates of violence has occured since the gun ban of 1997. Between 1990 to 1996, the homicide rate in England was between 10.9 and 13 homicides per million. The homicide rate in england trended up until it's peak in 2003 at 18 homicides per million. Around that time, England added 20,000 more police officers. In 2010, the homicide rate had fallen to 11.1 homicides per million.
Yep, there was a spike in the homicide rate after the ban of handguns. And it took adding police officers to bring it under control.
http://www.mintpressnews.com/the-facts-that-neither-side-wants-to-admit-about-gun-control/207152/
It may have changed but last I have seen, the European Media considers England the most violent country in Europe.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5712573/UK-is-violent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html
Brian, you are off topic.
Deliberately interfering with the natural progress of the thread (derailing, redirecting, etc).
These actions will result in corrective action facilitated by the blog owner to restore the sanctity and flow of the comments section.
Post a Comment