http://time.com/4326676/dangerous-jobs-america/
Police comes in at #15.
http://list25.com/25-most-dangerous-...n-the-world/5/
#14 in that one.
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Media/...us-Occupations
Doesn't fit in top 25 in that one.
http://time.com/4326676/dangerous-jobs-america/
Police comes in at #15.
http://list25.com/25-most-dangerous-...n-the-world/5/
#14 in that one.
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Media/...us-Occupations
Doesn't fit in top 25 in that one.
Last edited by mmoc3ff0cc8be0; 2016-09-24 at 01:55 PM.
Sure, I was just giving some listing of dangerous jobs when the guy asked which jobs are actually dangerous.
It would, of course, help a lot if there'd be a more clear graph showing fatalities per 1000 employees, just to make it clear that the number of police deaths is piddly compared to deaths in a few other professions.
“I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: ‘O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous.’ And God granted it.” -- Voltaire
"He who awaits much can expect little" -- Gabriel Garcia Marquez
More likely they would kill themselves by jumping in front of busses/trains or off buildings, overdosing on drugs and alcohol, drowning, etc.
The thread is about being shot dead by another person. Thus why suicide is not applicable. It isn't because of 'wanting nicer looking numbers', it's about the context. Using suicide is intellectually disingenuous.
Read the above. It's not about 'deaths caused by guns', it's about 'deaths caused by other people with guns'.
Because international data makes clear that the substitution effect is very large. There's not really even much of a trend between gun ownership and suicide rate across nations. In nations with guns, people shoot themselves when they want to die; in nations without them they hang or poison themselves. The Japanese have nearly zero guns, but seem to do just fine at killing themselves.
As the study shows, there are several factors that make suicide using a gun way easier than any other method. Not everyone that fails his first attempt at hanging himself, goes through the same process AGAIN.
With a gun, it's EXTREMELY easy to try again.
This was one of the strongest point.
- - - Updated - - -
There are several factors at play when talking suicide numbers. Having a gun by itself isnt all of it obviously. That is not what the study was saying.
I'm not talking about the study, I'm talking about using the results of the study in a thread that's about 'death by guns used by other people' not matching up. It's perfectly valid for the study, but it's not valid for this thread. This thread is about people being shot by other people, not shooting themselves, thus why using suicide numbers for this thread is inflating numbers artificially and unnecessarily.
It only places the dangers of that job into perspective. It doesn't diminish it.
Frankly, I'd rather deal with a job who's dangers deal with physics (electricians/lumber workers) rather than something as dynamic as a person. A tree won't jump out of the ground and fall on you. It's much easier to control the environment in a lot of those professions than it is to control a person.
1. You can't assume that homicide rate equals violent crime rate.
2. You can't assume that violent crime rate, which is determined by arrests and/or convictions, means a demographic is actually more violent. Chance to be arrested and prosecuted for a violent crime does not equal chance to commit a violent crime.
3. Being a cop isn't a very dangerous job. We know this because we have injury and fatality statistics and it doesn't rank terribly high. Being a roofer or a trucker is much, much more dangerous. When you consider how few police injuries are because of altercations, as opposed to car accidents, it appears even safer.
4.
- - - Updated - - -
If it's so much easier, then the statistics should not show those jobs to have higher rates of injury and death.
- - - Updated - - -
International data is nearly useless. State by state data is more useful, and proves you wrong:
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/ma...gunprevalence/
- - - Updated - - -
Because the main targets are black males, which have always been the main targets of anti-black racism.
"stop puting you idiotic liberal words into my mouth"
-ynnady
Why in the world would international data be useless, but state data be excellent? If the guns->suicide link is as strong as some seem to believe, it should be a persistent effect across cultures, not something found only in carefully curated data.
The link you provided doesn't remotely establish even attempt causality - both maps look like they're basically maps of how rural an area is. Appalachia and Big Sky country have lots of guns and lots of suicides - this suggests underlying causes for both guns and suicides rather than a direct relationship between the two.
This point is better articulated by Scott Alexander than I in the post Beware Regional Scatterplots; the first couple paragraphs are worth a quick read for why this sort of assessment is not a great plan.
Because nations have substantially larger differences than states, especially in terms of things like poverty, social safety net, mental health treatment, etc, all of which have serious effects on suicide rates. Simple comparison: Smoking may cause cancer, but that doesn't mean the overall rate of cancer is ALWAYS going to be higher in countries that have higher rates of smoking. There are too many other variables. Isolating those two numbers is stupid and fruitless. A small comparison where there are fewer variables, such as comparing neighboring towns with different smoking rates, is much more useful.
It establishes just as much causality as your data does. Don't provide blanket international data and then cry when someone provides blanket state data.The link you provided doesn't remotely establish even attempt causality - both maps look like they're basically maps of how rural an area is. Appalachia and Big Sky country have lots of guns and lots of suicides - this suggests underlying causes for both guns and suicides rather than a direct relationship between the two.
Great points, which apply equally well to your bullshit international data.This point is better articulated by Scott Alexander than I in the post Beware Regional Scatterplots; the first couple paragraphs are worth a quick read for why this sort of assessment is not a great plan.
"stop puting you idiotic liberal words into my mouth"
-ynnady
Allegedly. How many of those were cases of "He took my tazer!" or "I was being dragged!"?
Conveniently, we only have the cop's word on the matter.
How many cases do we have like this where the video doesn't get leaked to the media and the PD successfully covers it all up?
Warning : Above post may contain snark and/or sarcasm. Try reparsing with the /s argument before replying.
What the world has learned is that America is never more than one election away from losing its goddamned mindMe on Elite : Dangerous | My WoW charactersOriginally Posted by Howard Tayler
This makes sense. I find it plausible.
My claim is much weaker - I don't think there's a strong causal relationship between prevalence of guns and suicide rate. I wouldn't be surprised if there is some. This relatively weak null hypothesis position doesn't require anywhere near as much evidence as the claim that guns are a significant driver of suicide.
So, assuming that you actually think these are great points and you're not just being snarky, it leaves us back at having a pretty low confidence level in the impact of guns on suicide based on available data.
Bleeds it leads,war is good for business, we aren't in the business of selling facts we are in the business of selling stories....etc.
Why tell the entire truth when partial stories are faster to put up,require less vetting AND ....get you more revenue?
for the op though, I would love to see the current break down of ethnic origin for the US though , compared with the ....stats posted in the first post.
Break downs for interactions with police etc etc.
Numbers as presented are telling however it is not a complete story(nor would it be if you provided the break downs I asked about)
Last edited by enragedgorilla; 2016-09-24 at 05:55 PM.
There are lots of factors that play into this doesn't mean its designed to keep the black man down.
just some examples:
The majority of poor black people tend to live in major cities clustered together which means your closer to criminal elements and people in your community. This causes you to have a higher chance of joining a gang because either your friends talk you into it, you don't wanna get fucked up by them, or you see it as a way of escaping poverty. This also means during a crime there is typically more than one person committing the act which increases the risk of violence/escalating the situation.
White poor tend to be more rural which makes it much harder to join a gang. Meaning most crime is typically carried out by 1-2 individuals. Because everyone pretty much knows everyone and there are less store, most of the time people break into the homes of people they know when they aren't home making violence less of an issue.
If you look at the website you can actually read about all the people shot. Like out of the 93 unarmed deaths 3 were women 2 black and one white. One of the black women was with a murder suspect who fired at police. The other two women apparently didn't do anything and were shot accidentally.
Last edited by frogger237; 2016-09-24 at 06:13 PM.