Shooting in San Bernadino
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@iroal said:
In 2011 all Germany policemen shot 85 bullets
https://www.rt.com/usa/us-germany-85-shots-022/I don't know the data of Spain or rest of EU but maybe quite similar.
Few Americans realize how big Germany is. Germany is more than 80 million people, so roughly 25% the size of the US. So for the US, that would be equal to 340 bullets.
I wonder if that means that the German Police are actually better shots, ha ha ha.
-
@dafyre said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@iroal said:
In 2011 all Germany policemen shot 85 bullets
https://www.rt.com/usa/us-germany-85-shots-022/I don't know the data of Spain or rest of EU but maybe quite similar.
Few Americans realize how big Germany is. Germany is more than 80 million people, so roughly 25% the size of the US. So for the US, that would be equal to 340 bullets.
I wonder if that means that the German Police are actually better shots, ha ha ha.
Hopefully, regardless of anything else, that is true.
-
@JaredBusch said:
@scottalanmiller said:
This was the second mass shooting in the US today and the 355th so far this year. Mass shootings in the US are truly routine at this point.
I disagree with this. Prior to Columbine and all the more recent mass shootings, something like the Georgia incident would never have been deemed a mass shooting. Even if it is "mass" by textbook definition.
The entire mass shooting statistic is made up to server political purposes.
A very good article on this subject. That 355 number is completely made up by one person with his own agenda.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/04/opinion/how-many-mass-shootings-are-there-really.html
-
@JaredBusch said:
@JaredBusch said:
@scottalanmiller said:
This was the second mass shooting in the US today and the 355th so far this year. Mass shootings in the US are truly routine at this point.
I disagree with this. Prior to Columbine and all the more recent mass shootings, something like the Georgia incident would never have been deemed a mass shooting. Even if it is "mass" by textbook definition.
The entire mass shooting statistic is made up to server political purposes.
A very good article on this subject. That 355 number is completely made up by one person with his own agenda.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/04/opinion/how-many-mass-shootings-are-there-really.html
Likewise the lower number and complete misuse of the term "shooting" is one by the FBI for its own agenda as well. FBI looks only at mass murder, not mass shootings (using the term mass shooting is outright lying on their part for the purpose of deception - they are not tracking shootings at all but only deaths, you could shoot thousands of people and as long as they are only injured it would be ignored.) They also discount lots of kinds of even mass murder.
ANY count on mass shootings is going to be the opinion of the person compiling the list. But there is no reasonable way that the FBI definition can be used with the words "mass shootings" in any honest context. "Mass intentional murders using guns", yes, that might work. But the FBI has been heavily criticized for using misleading terms and pointless measurements to cover up their inability to curtail shootings. That the US has redefined "shooting" as "death" for the purpose of misleading the public is the very reason that a different definition must be used for any honest discussion around shootings.
That does not mean that the 355 number is a good one, but the low FBI number is a total misrepresentation and the need for the US government to cover up how bad the situation is alone is a key reason that we need to be alarmed. If the number was not appalling,they would not need to institutionally bury it.
Most media outlets state their definition of mass shooting before stating stats. If people did not agree with the definition they could just ignore those stats. The FBI actually redefines the English, not just putting constraints on the grey portions (mass is interpretive, shooting is not, yet it is shooting that they redefine!)
-
For example, the FBI only tracks successful slaughter in public, not semi-successful ones. Should the availability and competence of doctors, for example, be a deciding factor in the statistics? If the goal is to track, understand and stop these things should our skill at saving lives after the tragedy has happened be a deciding factor as to whether or not we include the event?
-
Should there be new terms? Perhaps. I think we all know that mass shooting means exactly what it sounds like. And we all know that what we are really talking about, most of the time, is something more specific. With that, I think we can mostly agree. But when we are talking about stopping specific motives or understanding threats we need to see one stat (motive based.) If we are concerned about guns we need to see another (shootings.) Each plays a different role. People afraid of guns don't care why people were shot or if they died, only that someone had a gun and was willing to use it. When we are looking for terrorist we don't care about people who just snapped or had a bad day at work. When we are looking for crazed murderers we don't care that they used guns, knives or toothpicks.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
For example, the FBI only tracks successful slaughter in public, not semi-successful ones. Should the availability and competence of doctors, for example, be a deciding factor in the statistics? If the goal is to track, understand and stop these things should our skill at saving lives after the tragedy has happened be a deciding factor as to whether or not we include the event?
yes, they track homicides. That is all that was every tracked under this term. Just because you want to redefine the it, does not invalidate it.
Guess what, non-lethal information is also tracked. That is how this new definition was produced by this guy in the first place.
You don't have to like the term, but that is how it has been reported for decades. If you want to redefine it to be technically correct, that is fine, but you have to make it known that you are redefining the current understanding of the term to something different. Otherwise it is nothing but fraud and sensationalism for your own purpose.
Prove to me that anyone in the mass media was reporting the 355 number and explaining the new way of counting is different than it has been for decades and I will stop arguing. The problem is that you cannot because no one was until today.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Should there be new terms? Perhaps. I think we all know that mass shooting means exactly what it sounds like. And we all know that what we are really talking about, most of the time, is something more specific. With that, I think we can mostly agree. But when we are talking about stopping specific motives or understanding threats we need to see one stat (motive based.) If we are concerned about guns we need to see another (shootings.) Each plays a different role. People afraid of guns don't care why people were shot or if they died, only that someone had a gun and was willing to use it. When we are looking for terrorist we don't care about people who just snapped or had a bad day at work. When we are looking for crazed murderers we don't care that they used guns, knives or toothpicks.
Unlike you, I am not afraid of guns. They are a tool and do not scare me. Others do not share that sentiment, but do not push your fear on me.
-
@JaredBusch said:
yes, they track homicides. That is all that was every tracked under this term. Just because you want to redefine the it, does not invalidate it.
Shooting does not mean homicide. You don't go to a shooting range and kill people, you just shoot. It is hardly me "redefining" super basic English language words here. This is not about me and that's just deflection. The FBI uses the term to be misleading. This is just about the language. The FBI does not have the "right" to redefine the language. The government might give them the right to use it however they choose, but the power to control the language and its meaning does not rest with one government agency.
-
@JaredBusch said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Should there be new terms? Perhaps. I think we all know that mass shooting means exactly what it sounds like. And we all know that what we are really talking about, most of the time, is something more specific. With that, I think we can mostly agree. But when we are talking about stopping specific motives or understanding threats we need to see one stat (motive based.) If we are concerned about guns we need to see another (shootings.) Each plays a different role. People afraid of guns don't care why people were shot or if they died, only that someone had a gun and was willing to use it. When we are looking for terrorist we don't care about people who just snapped or had a bad day at work. When we are looking for crazed murderers we don't care that they used guns, knives or toothpicks.
Unlike you, I am not afraid of guns. They are a tool and do not scare me. Others do not share that sentiment, but do not push your fear on me.
How did anything in that statement lead you to that?
-
@JaredBusch said:
You don't have to like the term, but that is how it has been reported for decades.
I'm not saying that the misuse is new. And it is not "how the term has been reported". It is "how the term has been used by the FBI". The media and people just speaking in English have used the term more broadly since the first use of the term "shooting".
We had "mass" and "shooting" long before we had the FBI. I'm not arguing that the FBI suddenly changed it. I'm not arguing that the FBI's tracking isn't useful. I'm only stating that the attempt to claim that the media are the ones skewing the numbers is not accurate given that the comparison is the blatant misuse of the term (perhaps because we lack a better one) on the other side which moots the point.
Both sides typically state how they define "mass shooting." You can choose to side with whatever one you want, both sides appear to have accurate statistics given their definition. But one is tracking "shooting" and one "murders." So the term, if we keep shooting in the name, can only claim any degree of sincerity with the one associated with it.
-
@JaredBusch said:
Prove to me that anyone in the mass media was reporting the 355 number and explaining the new way of counting is different than it has been for decades and I will stop arguing. The problem is that you cannot because no one was until today.
No one was what until today? Using the 355 number? The explanation I've seen from other sources that were similar numbers had explanations that exactly mirrored what I believe I have seen several times in the past. I don't know about the 355 one specifically but the 1055 one was based off of a standard I have seen before.
-
To be clear, I don't fear guns. Statistically guns are still not that big of a deal. Cancer scares me a bit, but not guns. And I live in Texas, and in the Houston area. It doesn't get much more "guns" and "likely to actually use them at random" and it still isn't that scary. It's that I care a lot about protecting people, especially innocent people, and worry about the reasons why people want guns. Guns themselves are not the issue. If you simply give guns to people who don't want guns, it doesn't fundamentally change them (normally.) It's not like cocaine. Guns are not the issue themselves, just like cars are not the issue. But people driving their own cars cause a lot of unnecessary accidents. I care quite a bit about the importance of automating driving too - not because cars are evil or bad, but because we have a means, or are getting close to having one, where we can improve safety for everyone. If having more guns was making things safer, I'd want that. If driving fast without seatbelts somehow made things safe, I'd want that.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
If driving fast
without seatbelts somehow made things safe, I'd want that./siderant don't feel like starting a new topic.
Can I just get this? I hate speed limits designed for the ,seemingly, lowest common denominator. Many people drive alert and safely, just much faster than the speed limit says we should.
