posted by
takyon
on Saturday June 20 2015, @11:30PM
An Anonymous Coward writes:
"At some point as a country, we have to reckon with what happens. It's not enough to express sympathy. You don't see this kind of murder, on this scale, with this kind of frequency in other advanced countries on earth." - President Obama.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 21 2015, @05:27PM
by Anonymous Coward
on Sunday June 21 2015, @05:27PM (#199128)
I am not knowledgeable about US geography, and I didn't realise that the latest incident took place in a ghetto.
There you go, confusing individual events with data. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/09/19/the-racial-divide-in-americas-gun-deaths/ [washingtonpost.com], which the GP linked, and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_States#Homicide [wikipedia.org] which he/she didn't link. Homicide in the US is very much racially segregated: 93% of blacks killed are killed by blacks. The rate of death by firearm for blacks is twice that for whites. Taken together, that means that blacks are much more likely to murder each other with a firearm than whites are to murder each other, and that it's very unlikely that a white man will shoot a black man. In fact, a white man is five times more likely to commit suicide by gun, a black man five times more likely to be murdered with one, and by another black man at that.
The latest incident does not conform to that pattern. Not all data does: there are always outliers. The events in Charleston were highly abnormal. They were the work of an abnormal mind bent on doing something far out of line with the rest of society. Do not mistake that for the norm.
Here's the real problem: you can't effectively guard against highly abnormal events, the "black swans," to use the metaphor common in the financial world. You can, however, use data to predict where resources can be more effectively invested to prevent predictable tragedies. Given that the likelihood of developing diabetes or cancer or heart disease is far greater than that of dying by a homicide, resources need to be invested in those diseases rather than in the edge case of gun-related deaths.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 21 2015, @07:21PM
by Anonymous Coward
on Sunday June 21 2015, @07:21PM (#199166)
Something your analysis does not take into account is the impact on the living.
People who die of diabetes and heart disease tend to be significantly older than the people who die by firearms. They have already contributed a significant amount to their communities. And when they die, the scars left on the living are much more shallow because although premature, the death is neither sudden nor intimidating for the bereaved.
Also, false dichotomy. Working to fix one problem doesn't preclude working to fix the other.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 21 2015, @05:27PM
I am not knowledgeable about US geography, and I didn't realise that the latest incident took place in a ghetto.
There you go, confusing individual events with data. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/09/19/the-racial-divide-in-americas-gun-deaths/ [washingtonpost.com], which the GP linked, and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_States#Homicide [wikipedia.org] which he/she didn't link. Homicide in the US is very much racially segregated: 93% of blacks killed are killed by blacks. The rate of death by firearm for blacks is twice that for whites. Taken together, that means that blacks are much more likely to murder each other with a firearm than whites are to murder each other, and that it's very unlikely that a white man will shoot a black man. In fact, a white man is five times more likely to commit suicide by gun, a black man five times more likely to be murdered with one, and by another black man at that.
The latest incident does not conform to that pattern. Not all data does: there are always outliers. The events in Charleston were highly abnormal. They were the work of an abnormal mind bent on doing something far out of line with the rest of society. Do not mistake that for the norm.
Here's the real problem: you can't effectively guard against highly abnormal events, the "black swans," to use the metaphor common in the financial world. You can, however, use data to predict where resources can be more effectively invested to prevent predictable tragedies. Given that the likelihood of developing diabetes or cancer or heart disease is far greater than that of dying by a homicide, resources need to be invested in those diseases rather than in the edge case of gun-related deaths.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 21 2015, @07:21PM
Something your analysis does not take into account is the impact on the living.
People who die of diabetes and heart disease tend to be significantly older than the people who die by firearms. They have already contributed a significant amount to their communities. And when they die, the scars left on the living are much more shallow because although premature, the death is neither sudden nor intimidating for the bereaved.
Also, false dichotomy. Working to fix one problem doesn't preclude working to fix the other.