Philandro Castile verdict

[Starlight]

There might be. There might not. If there are, why would they lead to increasing the already ten-fold discrepancy, rather than decreasing it?

I love the "America is big" excuse. It's funny every time. A simple way to get around it is to compare the US to the EU, because both are similar sized multi-state entities.

US firearm homicide rate: ~3 per 100,000 people per year
EU firearm homicide rate: ~0.1 per 100,000 people per year

Or, in graphic form:

Homicide rates in the U.S. and peer countries by weapon type, 2013


That graph usefully shows just how unusual the US is compared to the rest of the Western world.

Note to casual readers: To get the combined figures across the EU, you average all those EU countries, you don't add them. So combining all those EU countries together doesn't add up to the US numbers, it averages at overall homicide rates less than a fifth of what the US has and gun homicide rates about one twentieth of what the US has.

[One Bad Pig]

I love the "America is big" excuse. It's funny every time. A simple way to get around it is to compare the US to the EU, because both are similar sized multi-state entities.

US firearm homicide rate: ~3 per 100,000 people per year
EU firearm homicide rate: ~0.1 per 100,000 people per year

Or, in graphic form:

Homicide rates in the U.S. and peer countries by weapon type, 2013


That graph usefully shows just how unusual the US is compared to the rest of the Western world.

Note to casual readers: To get the combined figures across the EU, you average all those EU countries, you don't add them. So combining all those EU countries together doesn't add up to the US numbers, it averages at overall homicide rates less than a fifth of what the US has and gun homicide rates about one twentieth of what the US has.

Note to casual-er readers: The vast majority of those US deaths occur in areas of strict gun control.

[myth]

Given the US courts had access to the video you posted which clearly showed the murder, and yet still didn't convict, what makes you think body cameras would help? There could be video footage from 1000 angles and the police and courts and white public would still say "the killing was justified, because the police officer felt afraid. The end. How dare you people be out for blood!"

This is your post that lead me to call you a snowflake. I"ll elaborate about the snowflake comment below, but for now I just wanted to point out your comment about the "white public" and "1000 angles" of video and how the officer "felt afraid". This is what spurred my comment, the fact that everything you said there is just outlandish, and not even relevant to the conversation. Racism doesn't have to do with anything with the Castille shooting, nor ANY (that I know of) police related shootings in the USA lately. Also, blaming it all on white people sounded a little...well, I guess I can't say that and be politically correct.

I therefore concluded that you were letting emotion come into play here. Because I see no rational basis for your comment. Additionally, the clear hyperbole ("1000 angles") seemed to indicate an emotional response (though I suppose it could have simply been a desire to drive your point home).

Perhaps you shouldn't write ludicrous and demented posts defending the murder of innocent people in between talking down to me and telling me to 'breathe' and calling me a snowflake and telling me I've lost my mind? If you're going to act like a horrible jerk in response to my rational reasoned and calm posts, I'll treat you like one. You're clearly emotionally unraveling over this issue and projecting your wild over-emotionalism into the posts of Leo and I who are two of the calmest least-emotional and most over-rational posters on this forum.

My posts are ludicrous? Well, I guess that's your opinion. Demented, though? I don't have words for this part (at least ones you'll believe or pay attention to). I do enjoy the irony here, however. You're "rational reasoned and calm", yet you're wishing death upon random strangers on the internet? Right.

"Wild over-emotionalism"? Nice description, gotta give you credit for that. You're the only one here who seems to think I was that wildly emotional. I didn't become upset until you wished death upon me. And even then, though I wasn't nice back (and didn't intend to be), I moderated my knee jerk reaction. Why?

Because I've learned to self-regulate my emotions. Through, you know, police work. After chasing and fighting suspects, watching people die, telling mothers their child is dead, watching child autopsies, interrogating child molesters and murderers, and watching children describe the worst possible sexual acts that could be done to them, I can assure you, a mouthy stranger on the internet won't get me THAT upset.

You aren't getting it at all - Myth doesn't agree with the officer or you. He's not arguing for justifiable homicide - which is what you're technically accusing him of. He's saying the officer wasn't clearly right - or committing a crime.

Thanks, Teallaura. That's an accurate summary.

That particular post just lets myth know his post was waaaaaaaaaaaay beyond the bounds of acceptability. Instead of rationally responding to the points I made in my previous posts, he just attacked me as a person instead. That's not acceptable. Out of nowhere and for no rationale, he accused me of being mentally deranged, a snowflake, emotional etc. Such completely unprovoked and uncalled for personal attacks are just vastly beyond the bounds of acceptability. He then went on to defend the killing of innocents. Just no, that's just no acceptable in any way shape or form. If he wants to engage rationally and calmly the points that Leo and I have made, he can. But it's clear he's just way too personally involved on this topic and has just lost the plot, to the point I have to wonder if he's killed someone himself and is trying to convince himself it was justifiable.

But it IS acceptable to wish death upon people, right?

Let's be clear, I never called you mentally deranged. So there's no need to repeat that lie.

So, now you think I've killed someone? LOL, just....wow. For the record, I have never killed anyone. There have been several times I thought I was seconds having to do so (legally, though I realize now that the concept of legally killing someone boggles your mind), but I've never done it.

No because of your over-the-top reaction. I don't know if you misread his post as hysterical or something, but he was pretty calm. Sure he called you a snowflake, but I just read that as hyperbole but calm. Your reaction to that seemed overly dramatic. You told him to die in a fire, then went on to basically scream at him while claiming you were the calm one and accuse him of maybe being a murderer.

This is spot-on.

I did unnecessarily escalate things by calling you a snowflake. I would have apologized to you (before), but you've continued to say crazy (and untrue) things about me even after everyone else has called you out on it, so I'll pass. To be accurate, though: at the time, I meant the statement halfy jokingly. I even used the deep breaths comment because it was intentional hyperbole (you know, to match your own hyperbole).

Needless to say, I was surprised when your subsequent comments made my poor joke a reality. I meant my comments to sting, but only lightly, and in a playful manner. I DEFINITELY should have used sarcasm tags or maybe a smiley face or something....but none of that excuses the stupid things you've said since then.

[Starlight]

Note to casual-er readers: The vast majority of those US deaths occur in areas of strict gun control.

False. That's a common myth.

See the discussion here:

Klarevas uses three definitions: he refers to "gun-free zones" as places where civilians are not allowed to carry guns, and there aren’t armed personnel stationed on the property. He calls "gun-restricting zones" as places where civilians can’t carry guns, yet armed security is routinely present -- such as military facilities or certain college campuses. He refers to places that allow civilians to carry guns as "gun-allowing zones."

Using these categories, Klarevas examined 111 shootings since 1966 in which six or more people had been killed in each incident -- regardless of whether it occurred in a public or private location or if it was in the commission of another crime.

He found 13 took place in gun-free zones and five took place in gun-restricting zones. That means that the majority occurred in areas where there was no evidence that private guns were prohibited.

[Teallaura]

Note to the non-casual reader: We were already having trouble distinguishing between murder and manslaughter - bets on how well definitions of assault match up?

[Starlight]

Note to the non-casual reader: We were already having trouble distinguishing between murder and manslaughter - bets on how well definitions of assault match up?

The graph I provided is of homicides. When it says "Assault... X" in the key it is referring to weapon used for the homicides. It is not at all talking about non-lethal crime sometimes known as 'assault'.

[One Bad Pig]

False. That's a common myth.

See the discussion here:

Klarevas uses three definitions: he refers to "gun-free zones" as places where civilians are not allowed to carry guns, and there aren’t armed personnel stationed on the property. He calls "gun-restricting zones" as places where civilians can’t carry guns, yet armed security is routinely present -- such as military facilities or certain college campuses. He refers to places that allow civilians to carry guns as "gun-allowing zones."

Using these categories, Klarevas examined 111 shootings since 1966 in which six or more people had been killed in each incident -- regardless of whether it occurred in a public or private location or if it was in the commission of another crime.

He found 13 took place in gun-free zones and five took place in gun-restricting zones. That means that the majority occurred in areas where there was no evidence that private guns were prohibited.

Inner cities are technically "gun-allowing zones" (which doesn't mean that guns are easy to lawfully get); that's where the majority of shootings take place. You (and he) are also looking at individual incidences, when the gun-free zones tend to have rather more victims than the average.

[Teallaura]

The graph I provided is of homicides. When it says "Assault... X" in the key it is referring to weapon used for the homicides. It is not at all talking about non-lethal crime sometimes known as 'assault'.

Opps, I was looking at the sidebar. The point however stands - we've already covered the difficulties involved.

[Darth Executor]

False. That's a common myth.

See the discussion here:

Klarevas uses three definitions: he refers to "gun-free zones" as places where civilians are not allowed to carry guns, and there aren’t armed personnel stationed on the property. He calls "gun-restricting zones" as places where civilians can’t carry guns, yet armed security is routinely present -- such as military facilities or certain college campuses. He refers to places that allow civilians to carry guns as "gun-allowing zones."

Using these categories, Klarevas examined 111 shootings since 1966 in which six or more people had been killed in each incident -- regardless of whether it occurred in a public or private location or if it was in the commission of another crime.

He found 13 took place in gun-free zones and five took place in gun-restricting zones. That means that the majority occurred in areas where there was no evidence that private guns were prohibited.

That's because liberals change the definition of "mass shootings" when it suits them. When liberals want to talk about Evil White Males stuff like gang violence is completely ignored. When you want to claim the shootings don't happen in gun-free zones (just areas with tight gun control, like democrat run cities) the definition expands to include every single incident. Given that nearly half the murders in the US are done by blacks, to blacks, and blacks vote overwhelmingly democrat, with very high support for gun control (which translates into tighter local gun control laws) there is definitely a correlation between gun control and being massacred by a gun wielder.

All of which is academic anyway, liberals demand an open border with Mexico, which guarantees that there is no realistic way to strip away guns from people, and especially from criminals. Liberals don't even enforce current gun control laws properly and that's when they're not caught selling guns to criminals themselves, like Obama did. Or that Democrat from California who got caught trying to sell rocket launchers:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...=.2c193740c6fe

At the same time, federal prosecutors allege, Yee was arranging a deal between an arms dealer and an undercover federal agent for weapons including something similar to an M16 and rocket launchers.

That’s right, rocket launchers.

(Our colleague Mark Berman has more on the indictment and its highlights)

According to the indictment, Yee met with the undercover agent in San Francisco earlier this year and promised to introduce him to an arms dealer friend who could import weapons into the United States from Russia. Yee allegedly warned the agent that arms dealing wasn’t a business for “the faint of heart.”

“Do I think we can make some money? I think we can make some money. Do I think we can get the goods? I think we can get the goods,” Yee told the agent, according to the charging document. “People want to get whatever they want to get. Do I care? No, I don’t care. People need certain things.”

Cherry on top: he has a PhD in psychology.

[Mountain Man]

Note to casual-er readers: The vast majority of those US deaths occur in areas of strict gun control.

Yep. Subtract liberal utopias like Chicago, Detroit, and New York City from the equation and things don't look so bad.

[Starlight]

Whoa, that's way worse than anything myth said to you.

• Edited by a Moderator •

Whatever. I don't accept Myth's non-apology and won't be talking to him further on this subject. Given he's a US police officer he clearly has a lot of skin in the game and isn't going to be reasonable on the topic. Ultimately if US police continue to make international headlines regularly by killing innocents and getting away with it then that's embarrassing for the US. Although at this point I am beginning to wonder if the US's international approval rating could get much lower. Trump's approval rating was in single digits in some European countries last time I looked.

Moderated By: QuantaFille

If you want to complain about moderation, please take it to the Padded Room.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

[JonathanL]

Do too! Santa needs them to fly his sleigh!

Santa lives in Finland. A fictional residence for a fictional person.

[JonathanL]

It's a province of Russia that likes to pretend it's independent.

The last time Russia tried to make us a province we kicked them to kingdom come and back.(1)

















(1) I have a strong suspicion that we'd get our asses kicked if Russia decided to attack today...

[Jedidiah]

I never said that the US should just change its gun laws overnight. The situation is vastly different. Denmark came out of three different wars with the Germans, one 1864, where we fought as hard as we could, and got decimated. Then by Kaiser Wilhelm in WWI, where we surrendered, then by Führer Adolf Hitler in WWII, where again, we surrendered. The only guns the resistance movement had were the ones dropped by the British air force, or cache's hidden by the danish army. Though a few places managed to start a secret production of machine guns.

Because of these occupations, bent on controlling the danish populations, there were no machine guns, or even many guns period owned by ordinary danes. I don't know much about the development of gun laws, but they've been strict for a long time.

The same situation hasn't plaid out in the US. How many billions of guns and bullets are lying around in the US? I'm sure its an amount no one could hope to ever control. Even if semi-automatic weapons were banned for civilian use, how on Earth would anyone ever get them back? Anyone with a shovel could bury them, or stuff a cache of them in a mineshaft, or just hide them in the attic. Even if the entire US army was deployed, sweeping the US from East to West I don't see how all the weapons could be retrieved.

So no the situation is different, and while I think you guys are crazy for being so liberal with guns, as I think the Fins are crazy. I understand that the situations aren't comparable. Just that, if you do have a country with nearly no weapons, the police can rest a bit more easy.



I'd have to ask a patrol officer. Wish I could tell you. My guess is that they simple don't have the same gun anxiety that a lot of US officers have to deal with.

Your situation is fine as long as your government is benign, what happens when it is not?

[Starlight]

Your situation is fine as long as your government is benign, what happens when it is not?

I think a problem in America is the way you guys often conceptualize your government as an adversarial entity, that is out to get you. In countries like NZ and Denmark the people view the government as our servants: The government exists for the purpose of doing the bidding of the people and providing services to us. I think this has subtle but important effects in what types of behavior people put up with from the government - I don't think the populace in NZ and Denmark would tolerate a tenth of the sorts of things Americans let their government get away with on a daily basis.

To use an analogy it's like the difference between a well trained Labrador and a badly trained Rottweiler. If the Labrador-like governments puts a single step out of line in Denmark or NZ, the people are like "Sit! Stay!" and tell it to fix its behavior this second. Whereas the US Rottweiler government can be running everywhere and biting other dogs and dog owners and its own owner and the US people are like "Eh, what are you going to do? It's the government, people should be afraid of it. That's just the way it is." Whereas the other dog owners stare in horror at how badly trained the dog is and at the ridiculously lax attitude of the owner.

So to me your question of what happens if the government is not benign, the simple answer is: Bad things happen, and the society has done a loooooot of things wrong to be in the that sort of state in the first place. It suggests a total social and cultural breakdown. Everyone having guns to 'deal with' this situation is like an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff and relatively pointless. Except it's worse than an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff, because giving everyone guns not only doesn't actually help any if the society and government does go pear-shaped, it has real and deadly side-effects in the present.