515 so far this year...

[StringJunky]

Perhaps it has something to do with Fox News and AM talk radio and the right-wing blogo-twitter-sphere and their endless barrage of fear-stoking, anxiety-amplifying, terror-alerting propaganda.

Don't hold back, iNow, tell it like it is. It seems reasonable to try and understand the anomaly in America by comparing to the Canadians.

Edited June 20, 2015 by StringJunky

[Wolfhnd]

There are so many tangents in this thread it is hard to know where to start.

 

While the number of people killed in the US by firearms is tragic I think we need some perspective.

The U.S. is indeed a violent country but according to the U.N. there are 110 countries with a higher murder rate. Some of which such as North Korea have strict gun control. No amount of gun control guarantees a reduction in the murder rate and prohibition proved that prohibitive laws can even backfire making criminality more prevalent not less.

 

 

Here are some numbers from the CDC

All unintentional injury deaths

Number of deaths: 130,557
Deaths per 100,000 population: 41.3
Cause of death rank: 4
Unintentional fall deaths
Number of deaths: 30,208
Deaths per 100,000 population: 9.6
Motor vehicle traffic deaths
Number of deaths: 33,804
Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.7
Unintentional poisoning deaths
Number of deaths: 38,851
Deaths per 100,000 population: 12.3
All suicides
Number of deaths: 41,149
Deaths per 100,000 population: 13.0
Cause of death rank: 10

All homicides
Number of deaths: 16,121
Deaths per 100,000 population: 5.1
Firearm homicides
Number of deaths: 11,208
Deaths per 100,000 population: 3.5

If we compare the homicide rate in the US to Australia's overall murder rate as listed below we can see that it is 4 times higher in the US.

"Over the past 18 years (1 July 1989 to 30 June 2007), the rate* of homicide incidents decreased from 1.9 in 1990-91 and 1992-93 to the second-lowest recorded rate, of 1.3, in 2006-07. *rate per 100,000 population."

There are many cultural reasons why the US is more violent than other countries in addition to gun ownership. Racial inequality, poverty, and a mystique that extends the virtues of self reliance to criminals are all potential explanations. Any forecasted reduction in homicides would have to take these factors into consideration. Assuming however that strict gun control as implemented in Australia were introduced in the US and there were no other factors involved and the homicide rate was reduce at the same rate it would reduce the homicide rate by 5000 deaths. Of course that is an optimistic number but even so that would reduce the preventable death rate by 3 percent.

No one would argue that 3 percent reduction in preventable deaths is not a worthy goal but if the same legislative attention were applied to all other area the reduction could save 41,000 lives.

I would not argue that gun legislation is not important but only that the numbers tell us that it should not be the highest safety issue before congress.

The idea that gun control is the only easy fix for the preventable death problem is misleading at best and distorts most discussions on the subject. The assumption that guns can even be controlled in the U.S. is worthy of debate considering the miserable failure of the war on drugs.

 

 

One of the other ideas floating around in this thread strikes me as naive.

The idea that the U.S. military is somehow going to suppress the gun owning population is absurd. One only needs to look at the Vietnam War, the defeat of Russia in Afghanistan, Irish resistance to English rule and numerous other examples to demonstrate that the relative strength of a Military compared to their adversaries does not insure victory.

 

It is also worth noting that most of the military officers I know are as hostile to "big government" as your average tea party member. A sizable percentage of the U.S. military would simple refuse to participate in a suppression of a popular uprising. If you look at the reaction of the Russian military to the overthrow of the soviet government you get a picture of how unreliable militaries are a suppressing popular uprisings.

 

There may be reasons why the 2nd amendment is outdated but it has nothing to do with the strength of the U.S. military.

Edited June 20, 2015 by Wolfhnd

[Moontanman]

I thought the point of this thread was people killed by the police...

[StringJunky]

I thought the point of this thread was people killed by the police...

Yes, and no one's been killed by a policeman for nearly 18 hours.

[iNow]

I thought the point of this thread was people killed by the police...

 

What may seem tangential and off-topic I believe came up this way. Claims that US cops murder too many citizens responded to with claim that they must be quicker to draw/shoot here relative to other countries since so many of those citizens are heavily armed. This led to idea that U.S. may need to do something about gun policy so cops can be motivated to become less trigger happy and our death by cop ticker stops bumping upward by so many people so rapidly.

[StringJunky]

What may seem tangential and off-topic I believe came up this way. Claims that US cops murder too many citizens responded to with claim that they must be quicker to draw/shoot here relative to other countries since so many of those citizens are heavily armed. This led to idea that U.S. may need to do something about gun policy so cops can be motivated to become less trigger happy and our death by cop ticker stops bumping upward by so many people so rapidly.

Yes, presenting a firearm in any confrontation seems to be the first resort rather the last.

The first step is to have a national database that all state police forces must log all incidences of fatality by law. I can't believe they don't do this already. How can any conclusions be made without centrally collating the data?

[Wolfhnd]

It may seem like pointing out the obvious but the answer to the original post is that police in the U.S. are armed.

5 countries where police officers do not carry firearms — and it works well

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2015/02/18/5-countries-where-police-officers-do-not-carry-firearms-and-it-works-well/

 

Firearms give people a false sense of security and escalate confrontations. 59 police officers were killed last year last year in the U.S. compared to the one or two a year who are killed in the UK. I would argue that by putting themselves at risk U.S. police officers significantly increase the risk of not only being shot themselves but of shooting suspects. It's not just the presence of weapons but the psychology that effect the rate of shootings. We have created a culture where first responders must be aggressive by demanding they always take immediate action when other more considered responses may be appropriate. Overconfidence is fueled by the demand for aggressive immediate action. It is this overconfidence on the part of the police culture in general that leads to many of their failures including the war on drugs. The gap between what can be done and what is demanded significantly interferes with practical solutions.

 

​I'm not suggesting we disarm the police in the U.S. but only that we take a look at the psychology behind policing and offer more support to our police forces in terms of better training and equipment.

[imatfaal]

Yes, presenting a firearm in any confrontation seems to be the first resort rather the last.

The first step is to have a national database that all state police forces must log all incidences of fatality by law. I can't believe they don't do this already. How can any conclusions be made without centrally collating the data?

 

Remember Stringjunky that the United States of America is a federation of independent states with individual law-making and tax-raising powers. It is easy to think from here in the UK that it is a single unified polity governed from Washington. The laws concerning most of these issues are state made and state enforced - in parallel with federal level entrenched legislation like the Constitution. Centralisation in the UK makes sense - criminal laws, policing guidelines, almost all policy decisions come from a National level. Even the differences between English&Welsh law versus Scottish pale into insignificance compared to the differences between criminal law in the various States of America. If you look at the Counted website I linked to in the OP you can note that Oklahoma has 24 deaths this year and Connecticut 1 - both are between 3 to 4 million people but they are so different in so many ways.

 

In debates such as this the Washington Administration and the Federal legislatures can set the agenda but they cannot legislate away the State's power of self-determination and self-rule. I am not saying you are wrong to call for centralised information - merely pointing out that it isn't as vital to a solution as it would be here in UK.

 

The control of information is crucial to this area of debate - I regularly see the faux-statistic that violent crime is actually worse in the UK than in the USA. In the narrowest sense this is correct - but if you look at the categories listed as violent crime you quickly note that in the UK the Ministry of Justice count almost every crime with a physical element against the person, whilst the FBI in the USA count only the 4 most heinous crimes on the statutes. I don't have time to survey the above post about homicide in Australia - but I wonder if a similar false accounting is happening there as well. The example I gave about violent crime managed to get UK into top position, with that den of inequity Sweden as the second worse place in the world followed by traditionally anarchic Austria.

[StringJunky]

 

Remember Stringjunky that the United States of America is a federation of independent states with individual law-making and tax-raising powers. It is easy to think from here in the UK that it is a single unified polity governed from Washington. The laws concerning most of these issues are state made and state enforced - in parallel with federal level entrenched legislation like the Constitution. Centralisation in the UK makes sense - criminal laws, policing guidelines, almost all policy decisions come from a National level. Even the differences between English&Welsh law versus Scottish pale into insignificance compared to the differences between criminal law in the various States of America. If you look at the Counted website I linked to in the OP you can note that Oklahoma has 24 deaths this year and Connecticut 1 - both are between 3 to 4 million people but they are so different in so many ways.

 

In debates such as this the Washington Administration and the Federal legislatures can set the agenda but they cannot legislate away the State's power of self-determination and self-rule. I am not saying you are wrong to call for centralised information - merely pointing out that it isn't as vital to a solution as it would be here in UK.

 

The control of information is crucial to this area of debate - I regularly see the faux-statistic that violent crime is actually worse in the UK than in the USA. In the narrowest sense this is correct - but if you look at the categories listed as violent crime you quickly note that in the UK the Ministry of Justice count almost every crime with a physical element against the person, whilst the FBI in the USA count only the 4 most heinous crimes on the statutes. I don't have time to survey the above post about homicide in Australia - but I wonder if a similar false accounting is happening there as well. The example I gave about violent crime managed to get UK into top position, with that den of inequity Sweden as the second worse place in the world followed by traditionally anarchic Austria.

The states need to be treated like our counties and critical decisions made by federal government. Certain things need harmonising across all states, otherwise you'll always have rotten apples at the bottom of the barrel perpetuating the problem and spoiling the rest; "If they can do it, so can we".

[imatfaal]

The states need to be treated like our counties and critical decisions made by federal government. Certain things need harmonising across all states, otherwise you'll always have rotten apples at the bottom of the barrel perpetuating the problem and spoiling the rest; "If they can do it, so can we".

 

The states CANNOT BE TREATED as our counties. It is for that very reason that the second amendment is so dear to many Americans. If you start from your position you cannot understand how America works at present nor how it could progress in the future; it is not a single State with layers of subdivision, it is a groups of States that have federated due to common cause.

[StringJunky]

 

The states CANNOT BE TREATED as our counties. It is for that very reason that the second amendment is so dear to many Americans. If you start from your position you cannot understand how America works at present nor how it could progress in the future; it is not a single State with layers of subdivision, it is a groups of States that have federated due to common cause.

I know. They've got the same problem that EU is slowly concocting for itself.. It's only the military that gives the US the illusion of a single country.

[Klaynos]

Surely it would make more sense to (at least to start with) compare the states to one another. They're all operating within the constitution so the second amendment applies (although the laws can be significantly different) are there big divisions in these stats between states when normalised for population? If there are then that gives some starting point for looking at the culture and laws that are consistent and varying between the "good" and "bad" ends of the spectrum.

[mississippichem]

I know. They've got the same problem that EU is slowly concocting for itself.. It's only the military that gives the US the illusion of a single country.

Point taken but I think that's a bit far. Living here Washington's domestic policies do have an effect on people's daily lives other than defense related stuff. It's just not as noticeable until you do things like file taxes, purchase a home, or sell equities.

 

I will agree that things like gun policy, vice laws, police procedure, and similar are often the territory of state government so a visiting traveler might in fact feel as though New Jersey, Kansas, and Oregon were three different countries.

[StringJunky]

Point taken but I think that's a bit far. Living here Washington's domestic policies do have an effect on people's daily lives other than defense related stuff. It's just not as noticeable until you do things like file taxes, purchase a home, or sell equities.

 

I will agree that things like gun policy, vice laws, police procedure, and similar are often the territory of state government so a visiting traveler might in fact feel as though New Jersey, Kansas, and Oregon were three different countries.

If the matter under scrutiny is the jurisdiction of individual states, then Obama may as well sit on his hands and do nothing... getting 50 autonomous states to harmonise has about as much chance as a monkey typing Shakespeare. The system is fundamentally flawed the way it is in its lack of a centralised executive, administering the matters under discussion. All imo of course.

 

I think Klaynos is on the right track about analysing the situation state by state, There's no point comparing with the UK. US police is effectively a paramilitary, it seems,

Edited June 21, 2015 by StringJunky

[StringJunky]

People killed by police up to now 555. 123 of them unarmed.

[iNow]

See? What's the big deal? Clearly, there is not a problem. Nothing to see here. Move along folks, move along. #DisheartenedSarcasm

 

40 people. 2 weeks. Unacceptable status quo.

[StringJunky]

My apologies, it's 554. I've bookmarked the Guardian's Counted site and been looking at it nearly everyday, trying to make sense of the data. This centralised compilation of data is what the US government should be doing. Reading the notes to each case, I'm definitely getting a feeling cops are quite often reaching for their guns much too quickly and quite a few people are getting shot in the back running away... it seems that this is sufficient reason to use a gun on someone: when they bolt.

Edited July 3, 2015 by StringJunky

[imatfaal]

 

My apologies, it's 554. I've bookmarked the Guardian's Counted site and been looking at it nearly everyday, trying to make sense of the data. This centralised compilation of data is what the US government should be doing. Reading the notes to each case, I'm definitely getting a feeling cops are quite often reaching for their guns much too quickly and quite a few people are getting shot in the back running away... it seems that this is sufficient reason to use a gun on someone: when they bolt.

 

 

That's the opposite of my general impression - whilst I was appalled at the numbers, the lack of statistics, and the "unacceptable status quo" and I remain so. However of the reports I read (admittedly when I opened the thread) more than a few made me think "Well yeah - if you have an armed police force, and you do that then..."

 

What was truly chilling was that the reports which did not concern a mutually armed confrontation and quite often were rooted in a traffic stop with the driver bolting were all young black men.

 

edit - 49/155 of black unarmed, 48/278 white unarmed. OK so more impression than "all" - but still dispropotional

[Harold Squared]

Ya, car culture is part of it. The relative anonymity of cruisers passing by vs the friendly neighborhood flatfoot people know and trust. Also you get a call to a disturbance, a bunch of cops show up and try to out-macho each other. Then there's the traffic stop, probably the most dangerous and the most rewarding work for the average cop. They have no idea what will happen, maybe felony arrests, firefights, sudden pursuit scenarios, you name it.

 

If you are pulled over in the USA, follow all directives of the officer and say as little as possible. Make no sudden moves of either an aggressive manner or one indicative of flight. Ask if you are free to go. If you are denied in this ask for an attorney and say nothing else. His job is to make arrests, do not take it personally. Have no contraband in your vehicle or on your person, of course. Have the number of an attorney who has agreed to represent you should the need arise and it would not hurt to have a cop you know to vouch for you, a neighbor, kid's friend's father, one you have met in a social context outside law enforcement. Keep a roll of red transparent tape to fix a cracked taillight and some bulbs, fix it before you attract attention. Keep your registration and inspection stickers current and insurance up to date, it is cheaper in the long run.

Edited July 4, 2015 by Harold Squared

[imatfaal]

Ya, car culture is part of it. The relative anonymity of cruisers passing by vs the friendly neighborhood flatfoot people know and trust. Also you get a call to a disturbance, a bunch of cops show up and try to out-macho each other. Then there's the traffic stop, probably the most dangerous and the most rewarding work for the average cop. They have no idea what will happen, maybe felony arrests, firefights, sudden pursuit scenarios, you name it.

 

If you are pulled over in the USA, follow all directives of the officer and say as little as possible. Make no sudden moves of either an aggressive manner or one indicative of flight. Ask if you are free to go. If you are denied in this ask for an attorney and say nothing else. His job is to make arrests, do not take it personally. Have no contraband in your vehicle or on your person, of course. Have the number of an attorney who has agreed to represent you should the need arise and it would not hurt to have a cop you know to vouch for you, a neighbor, kid's friend's father, one you have met in a social context outside law enforcement. Keep a roll of red transparent tape to fix a cracked taillight and some bulbs, fix it before you attract attention. Keep your registration and inspection stickers current and insurance up to date, it is cheaper in the long run.

 

Harold whilst your advice makes good real world sense and I would urge anyone in the USA to follow it - there is a problem; the penalty for being rude to a cop, for not having someone to vouch for you, for having an eighth, or generally displaying contempt for the police officer SHOULD NOT BE summary roadside execution.

[Harold Squared]

Oh sure, no not at all. My brother once went to jail for it. Not killed, thank God.

[imatfaal]

563...

 

The last (a subconscious error - it should be "the latest" as we know it will not be "the last") a 25yo who died of a heart-failure whilst in police custody who responding to a call that he was causing a disturbance.

 

I know I could not do a police officers job - I would be too scared of the physical violence and intimidation levelled at me; but it seems that too many serving officers relish the conflict. Is the price society pays for having police who are not afraid, not easily cowed that these police will demand absolute compliance and be willing to use ultimate physical force in order to dominate a battle of wills

[imatfaal]

601

 

Ware was reportedly holding a gun and was sitting on the front porch of a residence, according to police. When officers arrived Ware fled to a nearby woods. The 35-year-old was wanted on a warrant for evading law enforcement, according to police. Officers pepper-sprayed and handcuffed him after catching him in the woods. According to police he had trouble breathing shortly after and then collapsed. No gun was found at the scene, according to local news reports

 

Which seems to say that the probelm was that he ran away from the police - literally just that.

[StringJunky]

601

 

 

Which seems to say that the probelm was that he ran away from the police - literally just that.

Running away from a US police officer is a capital offence. I've bookmarked that site and it's disturbing that some people have been shot when it is them that have rung the police, clearly in distress of a suicidal nature.

Edited July 13, 2015 by StringJunky

[overtone]

 

 

601

It's gone up since.

 

A quick estimate from skimming that site is that about 5% of the people killed by police in the US are killed by being Tazered.