Gun Stats

[JohnRoberts]

More on tape....:

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/ordered-secret-recording-stop-and-frisk-young-blacks-males-article-1.1295665

Switches fail more often than resistors.  Do you check the resistors as often as you do the switches?
Best,
Bruno2000

Actually switches are always getting their "buttons pushed" which wears them out.. but I think I get your point.

Rational though and logic should not be ignored in this discussion, avoid the emotional hot buttons..

JR

Yes, let's keep things glib and simplistic, shall we.....

I can do glib...

Meanwhile, in the real world:

"The New York Civil Liberties Union found that police got 397 guns during 191,851 stops last year. That means cops found firearms on people in just 0.2% of the stops."

but

"at the peak of the NYPD stops — there was a record 685,724 in 2011 — cops seized 819 guns. That’s a gun recovered in just 0.1% of the stops, the NYCLU found. "

That addresses the glib remark about DeBlasio and lowering the amount of stops performed by police. In other words, just like summonses are thrown out over 50% of the time more stops isn't necessarily better. In fact the statistics show the opposite.

But we don't care about statistics do we? And we don't care about police commanders telling officers to discriminate based on race, do we?

You reap what you sow people.

We've had this discussion before too. The modest number of guns recovered during stop and frisk, demonstrates that the program was working. If the bad actors worry that they will be caught carrying a weapon, they DON'T CARRY THEIR WEAPON. 

Reducing the risk of being caught carrying a weapon will only increase the number of weapons on the street.

Am I the only one experiencing deja vu?

JR

PS: Profiling is common sense. The very effective Israeli security routinely uses profiling to identify bad actors. We need to find a good balance between irritating the public that is simultaneously being made safer. This comes down to perceptions and attitude. Popular media and opinion leaders are generating enmity rather than cooperations between these two groups who should be partners with common interest (public safety).

 

[mattiasNYC]

We've had this discussion before too. The modest number of guns recovered during stop and frisk, demonstrates that the program was working. If the bad actors worry that they will be caught carrying a weapon, they DON'T CARRY THEIR WEAPON. 

Reducing the risk of being caught carrying a weapon will only increase the number of weapons on the street.

So that's why with fewer stops they found a lower percentage? Because fewer stops = higher worry of being caught?

If what you said was true then FEWER stops would = LESS worry of getting caught = HIGHER percentage of people getting caught with weapons.

PS: Profiling is common sense. The very effective Israeli security routinely uses profiling to identify bad actors. We need to find a good balance between irritating the public that is simultaneously being made safer. This comes down to perceptions and attitude. Popular media and opinion leaders are generating enmity rather than cooperations between these two groups who should be partners with common interest (public safety).

Well at least now you're honest about being on board with racial profiling. Just don't pretend that racism doesn't exist then.

And to blame media for creating enmity when the police are the ones racially profiling and people like you supporting it is just beyond ridiculous.

I also notice that not one person here has addressed that police routinely and systematically locked people up without them having committed no crimes at all. Not a single one.

 

[JohnRoberts]

some people like to argue more than I do...

We've had this discussion before too. The modest number of guns recovered during stop and frisk, demonstrates that the program was working. If the bad actors worry that they will be caught carrying a weapon, they DON'T CARRY THEIR WEAPON. 

Reducing the risk of being caught carrying a weapon will only increase the number of weapons on the street.

So that's why with fewer stops they found a lower percentage? Because fewer stops = higher worry of being caught?

If what you said was true then FEWER stops would = LESS worry of getting caught = HIGHER percentage of people getting caught with weapons.

Sorry about the size,,, when I tried to resize it, it became hard to read.

The trends involve inertia or momentum. Cause and effect will not reveal instantly, while some recent anti-police trends are blamed for increasing violence in some cities. 

PS: Profiling is common sense. The very effective Israeli security routinely uses profiling to identify bad actors. We need to find a good balance between irritating the public that is simultaneously being made safer. This comes down to perceptions and attitude. Popular media and opinion leaders are generating enmity rather than cooperations between these two groups who should be partners with common interest (public safety).

Well at least now you're honest about being on board with racial profiling. Just don't pretend that racism doesn't exist then.

While merrian webster may agree with you, if the vast majority of law breakers in a given region are ducks, it makes sense to monitor people who walk like a duck and quack like a duck.

I've told this story before too, several years back. Over a decade ago I lived briefly in a suburb of Atlanta that was predominantly populated by wealthy black professionals. The few white residents were akin to trailer trash, excluding me of course.  I had bought an acre from a friend who owned 50 acres, and no trailer homes were involved. Profiling by police in that town was no doubt a negative  image of in poor urban areas.

And to blame media for creating enmity when the police are the ones racially profiling and people like you supporting it is just beyond ridiculous.

I also notice that not one person here has addressed that police routinely and systematically locked people up without them having committed no crimes at all. Not a single one.

Nobody mentions the millions of police interactions that are not fitting your hypothetical stereotype.
If it makes you feel better about yourself to call me a racist, go ahead. I have been called worse.

JR

PS: Apparently the police shooting of an unarmed white man in fresno, doesn't fit the story line.

 

[abbey road d enfer]

Only marginally concerned, since I'm in a country where arms circulation is somewhat controlled, but going back to the original subject.
How many lives have been saved by law-abiding gun-bearing citizens?

I have seen anecdotal reports of lives saved (and some over-reach by armed private citizens). These rarely get wide coverage in the media since it goes against the grain of their preferred story line.

Hmmm...Look at how the attack in the Thalys train, foiled by a few unarmed (but trained), was heavily mediatized, at least in Europe.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Only marginally concerned, since I'm in a country where arms circulation is somewhat controlled, but going back to the original subject.
How many lives have been saved by law-abiding gun-bearing citizens?

I have seen anecdotal reports of lives saved (and some over-reach by armed private citizens). These rarely get wide coverage in the media since it goes against the grain of their preferred story line.

Hmmm...Look at how the attack in the Thalys train, foiled by a few unarmed (but trained), was heavily mediatized, at least in Europe.

Yes that was widely covered here too, but not "armed" civilians, more like unarmed military buddies on vacation in the right place at the right time to use their military training for good, and with the right stuff to put their own lives at risk for strangers.  It was too good of a story for media to resist and actually supports the gun control theme. (Once again strict gun laws did not disarm that bad guy.)

Another notable example of unarmed civilians stepping up was flight 93 on 9/11 when the unarmed passengers overpowered the terrorists and thwarted their plan.

JR 

 

[mattiasNYC]

The trends involve inertia or momentum. Cause and effect will not reveal instantly, while some recent anti-police trends are blamed for increasing violence in some cities. 

And so just what amount of delay will account for inertia then? Look (huffpo:

Crime began to drop way before stop/frisk picked up. And once it did pick up, the number of guns found and shootings barely moved in response. The drop then began in about 2011/2012, and here we are in 2016. So how many years of "inertia" do you propoase we account for?

While merrian webster may agree with you, if the vast majority of law breakers in a given region are ducks, it makes sense to monitor people who walk like a duck and quack like a duck.

Here's a simple mathematical exercise:

Population = 90
Ducks = 30
Cats = 60
Stopped Animals = 20
Stopped Ducks = 10
Stopped Cats = 10

Let's presume everyone who is stopped is guilty of a crime. Now we can say that out of all criminals, Ducks and Cats were 50/50. And we can then compare that to the total population, and we get the following picture:

"Ducks are significantly overrepresented in crime statistics relative to their proportion of the total population".

Of course that's true, and so people will say "Let's go duck hunting, because they're overrepresented", and the cycle continues. Investigate more Ducks = find moreducks are guilty relative to the total population. Now, it should be noted that in real life, not this imaginary world, the stats were actually like this in 2011:

"n 2011, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 685,724 times.
605,328 were totally innocent (88 percent).
350,743 were black (53 percent).
223,740 were Latino (34 percent).
61,805 were white (9 percent).
341,581 were aged 14-24 (51 percent). "

So again, with an overwhelming part being non-white, just what statistics do you expect to follow using the above "logic"?

Here's a thought experiment for you, and this is based on anecdote:

I've been around weed a bunch of times. I've been around people that have taken other stuff. They were mostly white and middle class and well educated. This is to people not a big deal. Recreational drug use is extremely common. Yet when I talk to some of them the reaction to blacks being pulled over and subsequently shot is "Oh, well I'm sure most of them were up to no good or were guilty of something". So let's say that it is true. Let's say that those black people indeed were guilty of drug crimes, like possessing weed or other. The image IS different between the groups. The black person is a criminal because he likely possesses illegal drugs. The white person just smokes weed every now and then.

The reaction to who is committing what crime is radically different. Suppose you made the same amount of arrests with the opposite racial profiling on college campuses. What would the result be? I'm guessing you'd get a far higher number of whites guilty of drug crimes. Would we then get into a discussion about white-on-white crime? About how whites are prone to be drug criminals?

Let me give you a real world example now on how this perception of yours changes policy illogically. Consider Ferguson where Brown was killed. Now consider cops stopping traffic on roads and subsequently searching the vehicles for contraband. Scroll down just a little to see the data....

Here's what is plain to see:

- Blacks are stopped almost 7 times as often, despite being only 11% of the state's population
- Blacks' cars are being searched 12.1% of the time....
- Whites' cars are being searched 6.8% of the time....
- Yet despite all of the above the actual hit-rate on finding contraband is way higher for white people!

But again, people like you can say that out of all 521 arrests made blacks made up a whopping 483, and that will be true. It will also be missing the larger picture.

Nobody mentions the millions of police interactions that are not fitting your hypothetical stereotype.

So,

On the one hand you're advocating racial profiling, and then you just turn around and call my characterization "hypothetical" when I show proof of the racial profiling you support!!!

On the one hand you continue to advocate the constitutional rights of people to bear arms, yet on the other you have no problem with unconstitutional profiling. So the constitution matters except when it doesn't.

 

[JohnRoberts]

On the one hand you continue to advocate the constitutional rights of people to bear arms,

No, the right to self defense is a natural right and not even considered worth declaring by our founders. The second amendment is about local militias, because they didn't trust the federal government to have internal military/police power. (Not to veer but some executive branch agencies have crossed that line.)

Some conspiracy nuts posit that the federal interventions into local policing is a veiled takeover and unconstitutional.

yet on the other you have no problem with unconstitutional profiling. So the constitution matters except when it doesn't.

The 4th amendment protects against unreasonable search. The constitution did not address racial equality until later amendments.

The courts do not support stop and frisk, and I concede it is a bad compromise for innocent civilians who get inconvenienced.  This is all about perception so the bad guys need to "believe" they will get caught if they illegally carry weapon on the street.

Profiling is a emotional hot button word in this day of political correctness. Even without an official policy how do you think police officer decide who is suspicious looking? They make these decisions based on their personal experience, and past trends of criminal behavior on their specific beat. As I shared before when I lived in a wealthy black suburb, I was lumped in with the undesirable white underclass. I am glad I do not have any anecdotes to share other than poor service while shopping.

Do you have a constructive suggestion for how to accomplish keeping the streets gun free (it's already against the law), or do you think it is not a problem? How about in Chicago?

JR 

PS: Sorry it looks like you invested a bunch of time in your presentation. I have more important stuff going on now,  like mowing my lawn and following other world events. 

 

[micaddict]

Like I said in reply #8, attaching facts and figures will not change set minds.



MattiasNYC wrote:

I also notice that not one person here has addressed that police routinely and systematically locked people up without them having committed no crimes at all. Not a single one.

Which does not necessarily mean you're alone.

 

[mattiasNYC]

The courts do not support stop and frisk, and I concede it is a bad compromise for innocent civilians who get inconvenienced.  This is all about perception so the bad guys need to "believe" they will get caught if they illegally carry weapon on the street.

Except, as I showed, it's not working. In addition, I'd love to see white people in Manhattan be ok with stop and frisk with 88% being innocent. I'd love to hear them say that it's ok for them to be stopped, frisked, often summoned and arrested, while being innocent... 'cause a few of them are guilty. If you think that would fly in NY then you're high on something.

Profiling is a emotional hot button word in this day of political correctness.

So now the opposition to discrimination based on race is "political correctness"?

Even without an official policy how do you think police officer decide who is suspicious looking?

We're not talking about "without an official policy", we're talking about the official policy. It makes all the difference in the world John. Secondly, officers that tried to do the right thing and uphold the law were punished by the police department. Read the links.

Do you have a constructive suggestion for how to accomplish keeping the streets gun free (it's already against the law), or do you think it is not a problem?

To the extent they cause violence it's a problem that hasn't been solved by stop/frisk, as the statistics show.

PS: Sorry it looks like you invested a bunch of time in your presentation. I have more important stuff going on now,  like mowing my lawn and following other world events.

I posted all of that for your benefit, so you could read it and learn what the statistics show and what commanders have said in real life.

I can understand how mowing the lawn takes precedence.

 

[JohnRoberts]

3 more police officers killed in Baton Rouge.

This is unacceptable. I blame the political climate that embraces inflammatory special interest groups as contributing to this violence.
======

I worry that the anarchists are planning to stir up some Sh__ in Cleveland, an open carry state.  Last month the ACLU of Ohio sued the city to allow their parade route and protests to get closer to the convention center to better confront attendees.  Police try to keep protesters at some distance from the valid attendees to prevent violence and disorder. Guns will not be allowed inside the secure event controlled by the secret service, but in the larger event area guns are allowed by state law.

I sure hope I am wrong about this.

JR

PS: While Philadelphia doesn't have the added risk of violence from open carry, the restricted areas are smaller and the mayor has decriminalized nuisance offenses saying no one will be arrested for protesting without a permit. Sounds to me like an invitation for mischief.

We'll see how this all plays out soon enough, lets try not to be surprised. This could make Chicago in 1968 look like a tea party (not that tea party.. a tea and crumpets party).

 

[mattiasNYC]

3 more police officers killed in Baton Rouge.

This is unacceptable. I blame the political climate that embraces inflammatory special interest groups as contributing to this violence.
======

"political climate" = advocating equal civil rights
"special interest groups" = black people.

 

[JohnRoberts]

3 more police officers killed in Baton Rouge.

This is unacceptable. I blame the political climate that embraces inflammatory special interest groups as contributing to this violence.
======

"political climate" = advocating equal civil rights
"special interest groups" = black people.

I said what I meant, stop trying to put words in my mouth... your ugly words don't fit. I don't want to be baited into responding in kind. Ad hominum is not acceptable behavior here.

I perceive a problem with public rhetoric and finally President Obama made a speech today without calling for gun control, or including other divisive comments.  I wish he took this approach a lot sooner. Words have consequences, especially words from the bully pulpit. it is going to be hard to unwind this coiled up spring.

JR

 

[mattiasNYC]

3 more police officers killed in Baton Rouge.

This is unacceptable. I blame the political climate that embraces inflammatory special interest groups as contributing to this violence.
======

"political climate" = advocating equal civil rights
"special interest groups" = black people.

I said what I meant, stop trying to put words in my mouth... your ugly words don't fit. I don't want to be baited into responding in kind. Ad hominum is not acceptable behavior here.

I perceive a problem with public rhetoric and finally President Obama made a speech today without calling for gun control, or including other divisive comments.  I wish he took this approach a lot sooner. Words have consequences, especially words from the bully pulpit. it is going to be hard to unwind this coiled up spring.

JR

There's racial discrimination and you're ok with it, because it's racial profiling and you're not the one on the receiving end of it. Then black people not only have their civil rights taken away from them but are also killed at a disproportionate rate. Obama, being non-white, apparently shouldn't say that. He should apparently just say that it's sad that people kill police officers and that we all need to stand together. When he correctly states that there is a problem in this country with race and with the results of racial discrimination you see that as inflammatory.

Well, like I said, you reap what you sow. (Predominantly) white people have advocated this racial profiling and taking away civil rights while defending the police for decades, and yet that is somehow of no consequence. That is apparently not a problem.

You reap what you sow. Don't whine about it when it comes back to bite you in the behind. It's unbecoming.

 

[JohnRoberts]

3 more police officers killed in Baton Rouge.

This is unacceptable. I blame the political climate that embraces inflammatory special interest groups as contributing to this violence.
======

"political climate" = advocating equal civil rights
"special interest groups" = black people.

I said what I meant, stop trying to put words in my mouth... your ugly words don't fit. I don't want to be baited into responding in kind. Ad hominum is not acceptable behavior here.

I perceive a problem with public rhetoric and finally President Obama made a speech today without calling for gun control, or including other divisive comments.  I wish he took this approach a lot sooner. Words have consequences, especially words from the bully pulpit. it is going to be hard to unwind this coiled up spring.

JR

There's racial discrimination and you're ok with it, because it's racial profiling and you're not the one on the receiving end of it. Then black people not only have their civil rights taken away from them but are also killed at a disproportionate rate. Obama, being non-white, apparently shouldn't say that. He should apparently just say that it's sad that people kill police officers and that we all need to stand together. When he correctly states that there is a problem in this country with race and with the results of racial discrimination you see that as inflammatory.

Well, like I said, you reap what you sow. (Predominantly) white people have advocated this racial profiling and taking away civil rights while defending the police for decades, and yet that is somehow of no consequence. That is apparently not a problem.

You reap what you sow. Don't whine about it when it comes back to bite you in the behind. It's unbecoming.

WTF... are you suggesting that assassinating police officers is a rational response? 

And stop making claims about what I think. My comments are as clear as I can make them.

I have been whining about anti-police rhetoric for some 7 years now, since that Cambridge cop was accused of racism (incorrectly).

If you think I am the bad guy (part of the problem), you are entitled to your opinion, I do not have to accept your opinion. 

JR

 

[JohnRoberts]

3 more police officers killed in Baton Rouge.

This is unacceptable. I blame the political climate that embraces inflammatory special interest groups as contributing to this violence.
======

"political climate" = advocating equal civil rights
"special interest groups" = black people.

I said what I meant, stop trying to put words in my mouth... your ugly words don't fit. I don't want to be baited into responding in kind. Ad hominum is not acceptable behavior here.

I perceive a problem with public rhetoric and finally President Obama made a speech today without calling for gun control, or including other divisive comments.  I wish he took this approach a lot sooner. Words have consequences, especially words from the bully pulpit. it is going to be hard to unwind this coiled up spring.

JR

There's racial discrimination and you're ok with it, because it's racial profiling and you're not the one on the receiving end of it. Then black people not only have their civil rights taken away from them but are also killed at a disproportionate rate. Obama, being non-white, apparently shouldn't say that. He should apparently just say that it's sad that people kill police officers and that we all need to stand together. When he correctly states that there is a problem in this country with race and with the results of racial discrimination you see that as inflammatory.

Well, like I said, you reap what you sow. (Predominantly) white people have advocated this racial profiling and taking away civil rights while defending the police for decades, and yet that is somehow of no consequence. That is apparently not a problem.

You reap what you sow. Don't whine about it when it comes back to bite you in the behind. It's unbecoming.

WTF... are you suggesting that assassinating police officers is a rational response? 

And stop making claims about what I think. My comments are as clear as I can make them.

I have been whining about anti-police rhetoric for some 7 years now, since that Cambridge cop was accused of racism (incorrectly). Perhaps we are reaping what he sowed? I have long said words have consequences.

If you think I am the bad guy (part of the problem), you are entitled to your opinion, I do not have to agree with your opinion. 

JR

 

[mattiasNYC]

WTF... are you suggesting that assassinating police officers is a rational response? 

No, I'm not saying it's rational, I'm saying it's foreseeable. Explaining why something might happen isn't the same as advocating or justifying it.  I thought that was obvious.

I have been whining about anti-police rhetoric for some 7 years now, since that Cambridge cop was accused of racism (incorrectly).

Yeah, that rhetoric is rampant. It's so rampant on the part of Obama that felonious killing of cops is generally down.

Not that you care about statistics one bit though.

If you think I am the bad guy (part of the problem), you are entitled to your opinion, I do not have to accept your opinion. 

JR

And neither do African Americans and Latinos who are profiled on the streets of NY have to accept your opinion. Neither point seems relevant.

 

[DaveP]

A few neutral observations from the other side of the pond.

The last shooter killed a black cop, how does that fit with Black Lives Matter?

There have been 20 plus years of "Gangsta Rap", surely that must take some blame for racial profiling?

The white cop who shot the black guy in his car with his girlfriend, seemed far too frightened and nervous to be doing that kind of work, it needs a cool calm head IMHO.

It seems the most dangerous thing you can do in the US is to have a busted tail light.

DaveP

 

[JohnRoberts]

WTF... are you suggesting that assassinating police officers is a rational response? 

No, I'm not saying it's rational, I'm saying it's foreseeable. Explaining why something might happen isn't the same as advocating or justifying it.  I thought that was obvious.

I have been whining about anti-police rhetoric for some 7 years now, since that Cambridge cop was accused of racism (incorrectly).

Yeah, that rhetoric is rampant. It's so rampant on the part of Obama that felonious killing of cops is generally down.

Not that you care about statistics one bit though.

You are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts (Moynihan).  I am talking about an alarming recent trend. This is no doubt made worse by all the media attention. These killings were not always national (or international) news stories. This increased media spotlight can also energize copycats. I wouldn't mind being able to go several weeks without the flags lowered to half mast again.

"26 police killed so far in 2016, up 44% from 2015" and that headline doesn't count the three officers killed in baton Rouge.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2016/07/08/nationwide-police-shooting-deaths/86861082/

It is going to be hard to put this genie back in the bottle , at least President Obama appears to have changed the tone of  his messaging but we are about to spin up political posturing from both sides and I'm sure this conflict will not be ignored.

If you think I am the bad guy (part of the problem), you are entitled to your opinion, I do not have to accept your opinion. 

JR

And neither do African Americans and Latinos who are profiled on the streets of NY have to accept your opinion. Neither point seems relevant.

@ Dave P yes check your taillights, but for more practical advice try not to make the police nervous. Driving a fast car a little too fast means I've been stopped by police many times over the years. For at least the last couple decades when stopped, if at night I turn on the dome light inside my car so the officer can see me clearly from a distance. Then I place both hands on the steering wheel so (s)he can see them both and knows I am not up to any mischief. Then I wait for the police officer to approach my car and tell me what (s)he wants me to do, and then I do it. I find keeping the police officer at ease, and answering questions politely is just common sense, to realize the best possible outcome. Treating police with respect is apparently not very common for many.

I do not dismiss that young black people get treated differently than I do during a traffic stop, which is even more reason for them to be polite and respect authority.  Convincing them that the police are all bad guys who want to kill them may motivate some to run, resist, or do other stupid stuff that will invariably end badly for them.

There is basis for the perceived differences in treatment, and most major police forces have and are addressing these. I do not believe that increased killings of police officers is foreseeable, While I do worry about the many negative voices still stirring up racial enmity for political or personal gain.

Good luck to us all, the next few months will probably be even more divisive, as is the nature of politicians in heat.

JR

 

[kambo]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/18/us/wisconsin-sheriff-david-clarke-i-predicted-this/index.html

 

[bruno2000]

There have been 20 plus years of "Gangsta Rap", surely that must take some blame for racial profiling?

DaveP

It surely must take the blame for some attitudes.......
Best,
Bruno2000