Oh My God

[user 6228]

...

So part of what is going on is the press freaking out, in my view, and presenting a very misguiding picture of what is happening in the area of violent death in the US, because it does not fit the subconscious narrative of us being safe from gun crime because it is in the inner cities. I have never read Ta-Nehisi Coates, who writes so well on these sorts of issues, on this specific one, but he must have addressed it somewhere.
....

Never let good statisitical analysis get in the way of a good story.
Even the guardian goes in for sensational statistics
Can you spot the error that was also repeated on the Radio 4?

"Home Office data revealed that in more than 12% of about 36,000 cases between 2010 and 2015, the person against whom Tasers were used was black and of African-Caribbean origin or of mixed white and African-Caribbean origin. Black people make up about 4% of the population."

They took the wrong population i.e the total population to compare ethnicity... they should have compared it to the ethnicity ratio of arrests or resisting arrest or even prison population.

when you use those figures the story fades

 

[Curley]

Surely it depends on what the article is trying to say. Not having read the grauniad article in full - the snippet you present could be suggesting that police are more likely to taze(?) black people than white in comparable situations - in which case you are right, they have compared the wrong populations. Or it could be suggesting that black people are more likely to be tazed - full stop. In which case it is a valid comparison. What you have demonstrated is that selective quoting can obscure the original intent of the quotee . Or - more likely still, I have missed the point entirely

 

[jenkinsbrynmair]

Newspapers are there to make money - not expose the truth. The article would have been worded to suit whatever would sell the most copies

 

[user 6228]

In full context they and Radio 4 were saying police Taze black people "inexplicably" a lot more. It turns out they just Taze people they arrest.

 

[MartinL]

. . . . . . Guns don't kill people. People do.

But, we've always had guns in America.
QUOTE]

Always had them here too, we introduced them to America!

Availability of guns make it much easier to kill!

 

[user 6228]

The problem with the NRA is not their promotion of guns
but their insistance that guns equal power and that people without guns are powerless.

Then U.S. TV does the same again every night on all channels

Bring back McGyver and John Steed!

 

[Hivemaker.]

The problem with the NRA is not their promotion of guns
but their insistance that guns equal power and that people without guns are powerless.

They have got that right then.

 

[B+.]

They have got that right then.

Gandhi would disagree

 

[Hivemaker.]

Gandhi would disagree

Yes...and he was shot.

 

[MartinL]

Yes...and he was shot.

Was that because;

• 
  
  He didn't have a gun,
  A madman was on the loose,
  He really upset someone,
  or just got unlucky?

 

[Hivemaker.]

Was that because;

• 
  
  He didn't have a gun,
  A madman was on the loose,
  He really upset someone,
  or just got unlucky?

• 
  
  No idea, i wasn't there at the time.

 

[dpearce4]

Was that because;

• 
  
  He didn't have a gun,
  A madman was on the loose,
  He really upset someone,
  or just got unlucky?

• 
  
  I would say the top 3 i doubt he believed in luck.

 

[jenkinsbrynmair]

i doubt he believed in luck.

nor in trousers either

 

[charlievictorbravo]

Back in the 60s, I lived with my wife in Canada, where she worked for Winchester, the gun manufacturer. The company, naturally, was against all gun control and my wife brought home a bumper sticker she had been given (and possibly expected to put on her car); it said "Outlaw guns and only outlaws will have them". That's not far off the situation we have in the UK and guns are still used by criminals. However, we do not have a constant stream of mass murder in schools, theatres, shopping malls, etc. - our last was in Dunblane in Scotland in 1996, nearly 20 years ago, when 16 children and one teacher were murdered in a school. In the U.S., this type of shooting seems to happen every few months.

Not all American politicians are afraid to speak out against the gun lobby - see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0a_j_b5HmRE

CVB

 

[GlenJ]

I really wanted to make a considered reply - as a gun owner and opinionated beekeeper - but basically, UK asks questions that USA doesn't. "Guns don't kill, people do" so don't give guns to deranged people! huh?

 

[Erichalfbee]

deranged people
You can't always tell

 

[Curley]

Guns don't kill

But they certainly make it much easier. So outlawing multi shot weapons (say - more than two shots) must help.

 

[Hivemaker.]

So outlawing multi shot weapons (say - more than two shots) must help.

Only if the person using it is only ever allowed to carry two rounds of ammunition at any one time.

 

[Dusty Rhodes]

deranged people
You can't always tell

....... like the Forum, for example.

It's not till you mention matchsticks, neonicotinoids, BBKA or Waspbane, that the real crazies show their real selves.


Dusty

 

[jenkinsbrynmair]

Guns don't kill

But they certainly make it much easier. So outlawing multi shot weapons (say - more than two shots) must help.

Nope - for a start they are not 'outlawed' just need a specific application to hold them. That clause was a kneejerk reaction to the Hungerford incident, didn't do much at all for firearms safety just penalised legitimate users (Ryan was holding the multi shot weapons illegally BTW) the only sensible thing that came out of that amendment to the act was more accountability for the movement of shotguns.
Now, for the most part, the only people who have loads of 'multi-shot' weapons are those holding them illegally