Attack in Las Vegas
Moderator: Moderators for English X Forum
- philip_hughes
- Posts: 7757
- Joined: Tue, 29. Aug 06, 16:06
RegisterMe wrote:Understood.Morkonan wrote:A note on numbers: The US has roughly 324 million people living in it. The UK has roughly 66 million. Comparing raw unweighted numbers doesn't do very much.
US = 10.54 firearms related deaths per 100,000 people per year.
UK = 0.23
Yes, I'm comparing different years, different cultures, different histories etc, but none of that is enough to explain away the fact that the US sees 46 times more firearms deaths per head than the UK.
You know the really crazy, and upsetting, thing? The Vegas killings aren't even statistically significant in terms of the overall number of firearms deaths in the US on an annual basis.
...sadly true- somewhat mitigated by large population though. But even accounting for the US effect, the guns are the main driver in this statistically. It's very hard to cut the numbers any other way.
Split now give me death? Nah. Just give me your ship.
Phil, you're the right person to talk to about this, I think. Someone I was talking to said that Australia's level of mass shootings was sufficiently small that its disappearance after the gun laws were introduced is not significant. Would you agree?
Morkonan wrote:What really happened isn't as exciting. Putin flexed his left thigh during his morning ride on a flying bear, right after beating fifty Judo blackbelts, which he does upon rising every morning. (Not that Putin sleeps, it's just that he doesn't want to make others feel inadequate.)
- Masterbagger
- Posts: 1080
- Joined: Tue, 14. Oct 14, 00:49
You don't get the right picture just looking at numbers because our murder rate is so badly skewed toward an extreme minority of our population living in specific areas. Chicago is always relevant to any argument because of that. Most of America is not like Chicago.philip_hughes wrote:
...sadly true- somewhat mitigated by large population though. But even accounting for the US effect, the guns are the main driver in this statistically. It's very hard to cut the numbers any other way.
Who made that man a gunner?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pOiOhxujsEPhil, you're the right person to talk to about this, I think.
Question answered...
Strongly recommend watching all 3 of these
Part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYbY45rHj8w
Part 3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVuspKSjfgA
-
- Posts: 8903
- Joined: Sun, 14. Oct 07, 17:47
Sorry, the subject was revolving around the death penalty. There are "minimum mandatory" sentences for various crimes. These are a hot topic of debate in the US.pjknibbs wrote:I never said anything about the death penalty. I said there was a mandatory minimum sentence for murder already, which apparently "takes the law out of the hands of the People and puts it firmly into the hands of Tyranny".
Yes, I believe all "mandatory" sentences are wrong, no matter the crime. I believe in equal justice for all, but I do not like the notion that justice should be "blind."
- philip_hughes
- Posts: 7757
- Joined: Tue, 29. Aug 06, 16:06
Sorry to say mate, those effects can be accounted for. It is a simple matter to sample the data correctly and pick out trends.Masterbagger wrote:You don't get the right picture just looking at numbers because our murder rate is so badly skewed toward an extreme minority of our population living in specific areas. Chicago is always relevant to any argument because of that. Most of America is not like Chicago.philip_hughes wrote:
...sadly true- somewhat mitigated by large population though. But even accounting for the US effect, the guns are the main driver in this statistically. It's very hard to cut the numbers any other way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_square
This is one of many ways to do it.
Cluster analysis is another- I wrote a paper on that.
Split now give me death? Nah. Just give me your ship.
-
- Posts: 4350
- Joined: Wed, 10. Mar 04, 05:11
Not sure if this is related to your question ... but I remember last year there was a father in Texas found a guy who about to rape his 3 years old daughter (you read that right), in a fit of rage he beats up the guy to the point of death. After the guy stopped breathing, the father came to his sense and called 911 for an ambulance, screaming on the phone someone come to save this guy because he beat him up and he wasn't breathing.pjknibbs wrote:I never said anything about the death penalty. I said there was a mandatory minimum sentence for murder already, which apparently "takes the law out of the hands of the People and puts it firmly into the hands of Tyranny".
The state later decided the father would face no charge. A decision I can agree on, without advocating for what should or should not have happened.
Chicago contain ~1% of the US population and accounts for ~5% of the nations gun deaths. So yes it's certainly skew and the city obviously has a problem* but hardly enough to explain away the other 95% committed by the remaining 99%.Masterbagger wrote:You don't get the right picture just looking at numbers because our murder rate is so badly skewed toward an extreme minority of our population living in specific areas. Chicago is always relevant to any argument because of that. Most of America is not like Chicago.
I'd imagine the rest of the "specific areas" argument would boil down to: Crime is generally associated with the poor and disenfranchised which is the same everywhere, gun related or otherwise . . . . for fairly obvious reasons.
*Although I've been there several time's and I wouldn't have known, it's lovely, hardly a hellscape gang warzone.
Meh, I wouldn't.Mightysword wrote:The state later decided the father would face no charge. A decision I can agree on, without advocating for what should or should not have happened.
Given the circumstances* I probably wouldn't have advocated a murder charge, probably something akin to manslaughter with a focus on extreme leniency when it came to sentencing. Even if he eventually did get off Scott free there should still have been some kind of formal trial or Due Process. No charge at all for killing someone is lunacy.
* Edit: Now I think on it more how do we even know that was the circumstances? What was the evidence for his claims of attempted rape? It would have been bloody hard to prove.
"Shoot for the Moon. If you miss, you'll end up co-orbiting the Sun alongside Earth, living out your days alone in the void within sight of the lush, welcoming home you left behind." - XKCD
I am pretty confused why this would change anything even if true. The people frequently killing each other with guns are still doing so on American soil and the US government is either not capable or not willing to stop the violence.Masterbagger wrote:You don't get the right picture just looking at numbers because our murder rate is so badly skewed toward an extreme minority of our population living in specific areas. Chicago is always relevant to any argument because of that. Most of America is not like Chicago.philip_hughes wrote:
...sadly true- somewhat mitigated by large population though. But even accounting for the US effect, the guns are the main driver in this statistically. It's very hard to cut the numbers any other way.
"The problem with gender is that it prescribes how we should be rather than recognizing how we are. Imagine how much happier we would be, how much freer to be our true individual selves, if we didn't have the weight of gender expectations." - Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie
-
- Posts: 4350
- Joined: Wed, 10. Mar 04, 05:11
Bishop149 wrote:
Meh, I wouldn't.
Given the circumstances* I probably wouldn't have advocated a murder charge, probably something akin to manslaughter with a focus on extreme leniency when it came to sentencing. Even if he eventually did get off Scott free there should still have been some kind of formal trial or Due Process. No charge at all for killing someone is lunacy.
* Edit: Now I think on it more how do we even know that was the circumstances? What was the evidence for his claims of attempted rape? It would have been bloody hard to prove.
1 - Texas laws allow the use of Deathly Force to stop an aggravate sexual assault.
2 - There was investigation, there was just no trial. Pretty standard procedure, in the US you don't just charge someone until you have enough evidence, it's not a placeholder. A trial is something happens after an investigation, it is not an investigation by itself.
2 - I missed use the grammar, he was caught in the middle of the act and the politic investigation confirmed a sexual assault did take place.
At the risk of derailing the thread . . . oh who are we kidding this already a free for all.Mightysword wrote:1 - Texas laws allow the use of Deathly Force to stop an aggravate sexual assault.
2 - There was investigation, there was just no trial. Pretty standard procedure, in the US you don't just charge someone until you have enough evidence, it's not a placeholder. A trial is something happens after an investigation, it is not an investigation by itself.
2 - I missed use the grammar, he was caught in the middle of the act and the politic investigation confirmed a sexual assault did take place.
1) Yeah well if that's true it probably explains it, that's a REALLY stupid law however.
[sarcastic satire] Although if it does apply then I'd strongly recommend the young women of Texas routinely shoot any creep that touches them up without consent. Sounds like the Texan legal system is far more likely to believe you in that case than if you try and prosecute them for sexual assault in the more litigious manner. [/sarcastic satire]
2) I was under the impression from what you said that the father had basically admitted to beating the rapist to death. Under most legal systems that would be more than sufficient to charge and probably convict him of a crime. An investigation would only then be required to discover exactly which crime if any had been committed and what mitigating factors might be taken into consideration by the judge.
However thanks to the aforementioned stupid law Texas is obviously an exception.
3) I presume he was caught in the act by the person that went on to kill him, hardly a reliable witness. "Yes officer, trust me I had a very good reason to kill him, honest guv!". But still I'll assume the police were good at their job and what you say is true.
Most of my objections to the use of guns in these settings could be summarised with:
Do I agree with capital punishment. - No
Supposing I did would I agree with it being doled out by a random member of the public who's assessment of the crime is entirely subjective (and probably heavily biased). - Of course not, that would be insane. . . . . welcome to Texas!
"Shoot for the Moon. If you miss, you'll end up co-orbiting the Sun alongside Earth, living out your days alone in the void within sight of the lush, welcoming home you left behind." - XKCD
-
- Posts: 4350
- Joined: Wed, 10. Mar 04, 05:11
My original post was to answer pkj's inquiry about automatic sentence.Bishop149 wrote:
At the risk of derailing the thread . . . oh who are we kidding this already a free for all.
You know ... I'll be honest and admit I'm not quite understanding your intention here ... it's like you hear someone say "look, ok I gonna trust you, but I actually don't!" So let's me use an equally sarcastic and silly example to counter:1) Yeah well if that's true it probably explains it, that's a REALLY stupid law however.
[sarcastic satire] Although if it
....
3) I presume he was caught in the act by the person that went on to kill him, hardly a reliable witness. "Yes officer, trust me I had a very good reason to kill him, honest guv!". But still I'll assume the police were good at their job and what you say is true.
Do you hate someone so much you wish that person should die? If you do, try this if you are a woman, or if you are a man you can try to hire another woman to do this:
- Invite your target of affection to a quiet place.
- Club or shoot him to death.
- strip off his cloth and expose his crowded jewels.
- tear off your clothes and make it look messy.
- call the police, saying he tried to rape you so you shot him death.
- !????
- Profit!?
I'm sure it will works, after all I'm sure police has no need for anything other than circumstance evidence to believe your story. Do you see the silliness in this? If it was that easy, I'm sure there are lot of women out there would love to try it. Police is still police, they're not "investigated journalist" ala Rolling Stone.
I don't claim to know about the woman anatomy, neither I know much about the science behind forensis, but I'm sure as hell it's not hard to verify if a sexual assault or act happened or not, and the fact the target here is a child kinda make every other argument kinda moot.
Uhm, even without that law that's not how things work, at least not in the US as a whole. And I hope what you described is not how MOST legal system work like you claimed. If your claim is true, then I guess the US is just a very good place to be and I will feel terribly sorry for the world, or whatever country use that system.
2) I was under the impression from what you said that the father had basically admitted to beating the rapist to death. Under most legal systems that would be more than sufficient to charge and probably convict him of a crime. An investigation would only then be required to discover exactly which crime if any had been committed and what mitigating factors might be taken into consideration by the judge.
However thanks to the aforementioned stupid law Texas is obviously an exception.
In the state, the prosecutor will not bring charge again someone unless they already "built" a solid case, meaning doing their homework and investigation. Because one they bring up a charge, that's exactly what they must prove, no more nor less. For example:
- If they charge someone with First Degree Murder, they must prove exactly that.
- The defendant must be found guilty of First Degree Murder with sufficient evidence, or all bets are off.
- Only AFTER the defendant is found guilty of First Degree Murder, then the mitigation factors are looked at to see if the sentence can be reduced.
- The point here is: someone who is guilty of First Degree Murder can have the sentence reduced to 2nd Manslaughter base on mitigating factors, but make no mistake, the defendant still have be found guilty of the original First Degree Murder first. If you can't prove that, he's a free man.
This is to protect the citizen from the state who considered to have unlimited power and resource, they can't just throw a bunch of random things at you and see what is stick. They can not charge you with First Degree Murder and later found you guilty of 2nd Manslaughter just because they couldn't prove the original charge. That's why, and you should be familiar with this, the US always "announce" an investigation first while emphasizing "no charge" is made. But of course with the hysteria usually exist in the media, the narrative is always an investigation is as good as a charge, or even better, as good as guilty already.
Most of my objections to the use of guns in these settings could be summarised with:
Do I agree with capital punishment. - No
Supposing I did would I agree with it being doled out by a random member of the public who's assessment of the crime is entirely subjective (and probably heavily biased). - Of course not, that would be insane. . . . . welcome to Texas!
Like I said, my original post was to answer pkj's question about a default punishment. Do you know why I dig this one case out of my memory? Because it doesn't involve gun, because in my experience when gun is involved it skew whatever original point into something else, often with extreme prejudice. The father was barehand, but would the outcome be any different had he arrived at the scene with a loaded gun or a sword? I doubt it, the only difference would be how the other guy would die, most likely.
And for your thinking the law is stupid, to me it isn't. The reason why I said I agree with the decision of the court without advocating for what should or should not happen. This news made the headline, and per usual there were 2 side:
- One side believed the rapist is a scum and should have died, the father did a good job of saving tax payer the court cost and the living cost of jailing the rapist for life. I don't agree with this, if you ask me, I would prefer no life is lost and the rapist should have answered to the law. Any loss of life is regrettable, even if it's the life of a child rapist.
- The other side believe the father should have controlled himself, I think some were like you and believe he shouldn't be let go free of charge. Neither I agree with these people, because unlike them, I will not PRETEND to understand the emotional state and mind of a father seeing his little child being raped. I can not judge him because I have zero confidence I would be able to do anything differently if found in the same situation.
In the end, I found it's a regrettable that such a thing happen, it's regrettable that a child was raped, it's regrettable that a life was lost, it's regrettable that a father now have a child who was raped and also living with the guilt of killing someone. But ... the law was appropriate, that is my objective, unbiased, unpolitical opinion.
And you're wrong to think this is a Texas thing, most places in the US has the same thing in place. The problem is most of the time they got involved with guns and guns law so like said the original point kinda got mixed up and disappeared. I mean ... I have to watch this training video on my campus every semester. There is a sequence about how to response to active shooting, it goes at length explain how to get yourself out of harm way and contact authority ...etc... but in the end, the video does mention that in the case of all else had fail and the attacker headed into your direction, then take him/her down using "any mean" necessary. The video show both in text and image someone hitting the attacker in the head with a fire-extinguisher, which I think 9/10 times gonna result in someone death. I seriously doubt legal would allow that video to be viewed campus wide without some backup from the law itself.
When I say there is no charge, I didn't mean there is no investigation, in fact the investigation is what decided whether there gonna be a charge, and if yes what kind of charge. At least, that's the sequence of event in the US.