More Mass shootings

[Conan71]

Five shot mags with the need to stop and reload are far, far less effective than high capacity clips - at least 50% slower if you are an absolute rock star. Your target rich environment quickly diminishes when you start shooting.  Eventually the Norway guy was targeting people swimming out to sea because they had all fled.

The reason for the AR-15 obsession is because it is one of the most effective weapons to kill humans ever designed. There's a reason the US military's "new" rifle is essentially an AR-15 (knock an inch off the barrel and add burst fire to some models), it's the best tool for the job. If the United States armed forces thought they could significantly improve on it, they would have.

If it is an unarmed environment with no resistance, it really doesn't matter what gun the shooter is using other than a muzzle loader.  You would have time to tackle or beat the assailant with a chair while he/she reloads.  You should be able to rack off a shot every 2-3 seconds if you are really methodical with something like a five shot Mauser, quicker if you are a well-practiced marksman.  Re-loading isn't very problematic either if your intended victims are unarmed and hiding in stairwells, closets, or under desks.  Same with five or six shot revolver.  Someone can do plenty of damage with a .357 or .38 special and reload rather quickly if they have a sachet of bullets in a fanny pack.

Getting rid of certain weapons doesn't change the intent of a sick mind.  They simply plan it out another way.  How many people were killed in the Iraq car bombing last week?  Over 175 or so?  I'm actually surprised there still has not been another massive bombing like the Murrah on US soil since then.  You don't need a bunch of fertilizer just fuel and plenty of shrapnel.  Note: This is not something I've spent a lot of time considering in case anyone is worried. 

Just some random observations about how you really cannot curb violence by taking away certain weapons and expecting it to go away.  It just doesn't work that way.

[erfalf]

Swake, generally speaking it is extremely difficult to draw too many inferences from any of this data due to the unreliability in reporting. Second, drawing conclusions from such small sample sizes is also quit difficult. Particularly the deaths from police. It is difficult to point out trends when the survey respondents are held to account per se.

We are becoming a far more peaceful people. So shouldn't police be getting less violent as violent crime continues to drop and their jobs become more safe, why is that not the case?

It is difficult to me to see that we have an issue with the police. You should take a look at the killings on the site below. I know it is anecdotal, but I reviewed all in Oklahoma, and nearly every one seemed to be a situation where the victim was not going to "go quietly" if you get my drift. It is no less tragic, but what is a cop to do in a situation like this. And in general, should they not patrol to stop crime, or should they just be the mop up crew. They're damned if the do, damned if they don't in my opinion. Even in most of these cases they were responding to an incidents that I would hope they would be responding to.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2015/jun/01/the-counted-map-us-police-killings#

And yes, mental disease appears to be on the rise based on those mug shots.

[swake]

Swake, generally speaking it is extremely difficult to draw too many inferences from any of this data due to the unreliability in reporting. Second, drawing conclusions from such small sample sizes is also quit difficult. Particularly the deaths from police. It is difficult to point out trends when the survey respondents are held to account per se.

It is difficult to me to see that we have an issue with the police. You should take a look at the killings on the site below. I know it is anecdotal, but I reviewed all in Oklahoma, and nearly every one seemed to be a situation where the victim was not going to "go quietly" if you get my drift. It is no less tragic, but what is a cop to do in a situation like this. And in general, should they not patrol to stop crime, or should they just be the mop up crew. They're damned if the do, damned if they don't in my opinion. Even in most of these cases they were responding to an incidents that I would hope they would be responding to.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2015/jun/01/the-counted-map-us-police-killings#

And yes, mental disease appears to be on the rise based on those mug shots.

Oklahoma, population 4 million had 28 people killed by police in 2015.
Germany, France and The UK, combined population 200 million had 4 people killed by police in 2015.

What are the cops over there doing to diffuse situations that we are not?

[rebound]

If it is an unarmed environment with no resistance, it really doesn't matter what gun the shooter is using other than a muzzle loader.  You would have time to tackle or beat the assailant with a chair while he/she reloads.  You should be able to rack off a shot every 2-3 seconds if you are really methodical with something like a five shot Mauser, quicker if you are a well-practiced marksman.  Re-loading isn't very problematic either if your intended victims are unarmed and hiding in stairwells, closets, or under desks.  Same with five or six shot revolver.  Someone can do plenty of damage with a .357 or .38 special and reload rather quickly if they have a sachet of bullets in a fanny pack.

Getting rid of certain weapons doesn't change the intent of a sick mind.  They simply plan it out another way.  How many people were killed in the Iraq car bombing last week?  Over 175 or so?  I'm actually surprised there still has not been another massive bombing like the Murrah on US soil since then.  You don't need a bunch of fertilizer just fuel and plenty of shrapnel.  Note: This is not something I've spent a lot of time considering in case anyone is worried. 

Just some random observations about how you really cannot curb violence by taking away certain weapons and expecting it to go away.  It just doesn't work that way.

Interesting.  I generally feel like I am in alligment with you almost all the time, but I respectfully think that while you are technically correct, you are missing the "ease of use" angle to this whole thing.    Yes,  if a person is determined to kill a lot of people, they could figure out a way to do it. (I happen fly a lot in my job, and I am certain that I could take over a plane if I really wanted to.  Hey, I'm an engineer stuck on a plane and bored.  I think about stuff...)   Along with you, I am also surprised that we have not had another Murrah-type bombing in the US. But we haven't, and I suggest a simple reason for this:  It's a big hassle to go through the planning to do it.  It's the same reason airplane highjackings fell out of favor after years of them seeming to be commonplace.  First, some basic securities were put in place, and second the "bang for the buck" (pun sort-of intended) just wasn't worth it anymore to those thinking about trying it.

So yeah,  a person can devise a grand plan like Murrah and carry it out.  Or they could figure out how to poison the water supply of NYC, or whatever.  But most of your budget-concious crazies won't do that.  Most of them want an easy play, and while a basic 9MM pistol can do some damage and really a tactical shotgun is probably best in close quarters, nothing is easier and sexier than going out and buying (with minimal checks, or even bypassing those and buying second-hand) a really cool looking semi-auto with big clips that was designed fundamentally to do exactly for what they want to do.  It's easy. It's cool. It's "so hot right now". It's the low-hanging-fruit of the psycho class.

No it won't stop everybody, and anyone who thinks so is a fool.  But put up some more "barriers to entry", and 80% of these go away.  Is it worth it?  I don't know.  There are a lot of big questions here.  But to suggest that removing easy access to these type weapons will have little affect is not appreciating the situation for what it is.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Five shot mags with the need to stop and reload are far, far less effective than high capacity clips - at least 50% slower if you are an absolute rock star. Your target rich environment quickly diminishes when you start shooting.  Eventually the Norway guy was targeting people swimming out to sea because they had all fled.

The reason for the AR-15 obsession is because it is one of the most effective weapons to kill humans ever designed. There's a reason the US military's "new" rifle is essentially an AR-15 (knock an inch off the barrel and add burst fire to some models), it's the best tool for the job. If the United States armed forces thought they could significantly improve on it, they would have.

The old bolt action I am talking about is hand loaded - push down into the receiver from the top, one at a time.  It takes is much more than 50% slower - 15 seconds versus probably 3 or 4 seconds for the AR magazine change....I am guessing 500% slower.  But 15 seconds to have 5 more rounds is still pretty fast in that context.

Swimming out to sea would be a horrible choice - just running or even walking on land - would be faster way to get away.

AR is designed for that all right.  In most combat situations I think I would still like the AK.  Or Ruger Mini 30....!

[cannon_fodder]

If it is an unarmed environment with no resistance, it really doesn't matter what gun the shooter is using other than a muzzle loader.  You would have time to tackle or beat the assailant with a chair while he/she reloads.  You should be able to rack off a shot every 2-3 seconds if you are really methodical with something like a five shot Mauser, quicker if you are a well-practiced marksman.  Re-loading isn't very problematic either if your intended victims are unarmed and hiding in stairwells, closets, or under desks.  Same with five or six shot revolver.  Someone can do plenty of damage with a .357 or .38 special and reload rather quickly if they have a sachet of bullets in a fanny pack.

. . .

Just some random observations about how you really cannot curb violence by taking away certain weapons and expecting it to go away.  It just doesn't work that way.

I disagree.

As you are aware, I am proficient with a 30 round AK-47 and with a 5 shot bolt action Mauser. With the Mauser 5 rounds on target at 50 meters (generally an old propane tank or tire rim) takes me about 10 seconds, to pull down and reload with an oiled stripper clip will take me about 5 seconds (unless I get the stupid clip caught in the bandoleer, like I always do). So to put 30 rounds on that target would take me 1:30 - and I feel like I'm hustling when I'm doing this. With the AK I can put 30 rounds on in under 30 seconds, and I feel like I'm being methodical. Even faster with a .223 AR-15 style weapon (vs. 7.62 x 39mm with the clunker bolt mechanism). I'm happy to go out and time trial this, and not to brag (I'm sure many, many people are faster)... but because its fun.

Much of the additional time is in resetting the rifle after the pounding from an 8mm cartridge, but resetting the bolt also requires an extra half second and some degree of losing your site picture. Reloading the magazine is self explanatory, I simply have to do it 6 times more often. Obviously, if the target was close enough to "feel" it out instead of carefully aiming, I'd be able to spray and pray much, much faster with the AK as the time between trigger pull would be nil.

In many circumstances some of the victims will be unable to flea and will hide. But if it takes someone three times longer to shoot them, help has three times longer to come to their aid (be it on-site help or otherwise). They also have three times longer to hide, barricade themselves, bust out a window, or find an avenue of escape. Additionally, in many instances the initial burst is the worst of the carnage: the bar area in Pulse, the cafeteria in Columbine, or the first couple of minutes in Dallas. If that first burst is limited to 5 or 10 shots, that's 20 people less people shot. If there is someone with a concealed carry, they have a much better opportunity to respond and defend themselves against someone who has to reload, vs. someone with an assault rifle (again, as we saw in Dallas - being armed isn't a magic panacea). And while the extra time may not provide (much of) an opportunity to assail the attacker --- but it triples the amount of time available for alternatives.

Not sure how else to put it - the entire point of assault style weapons is to shoot as many people as quickly as possible. They aren't designed for hunting, they are lousy home defense weapons, and they aren't used for serious target shooting above plinking or speed competitions. Everyone owns them for the same reason I do - they're fun and they're cool.

While mass shootings are a minimal part of our problem with gun violence, their impact is disproportional to their actual death toll (I think because the victims are so much more likely to be impersonal people that were wrong-place, wrong time vs. most murders being a personal dispute of some kind). Surely we can find some sort of trade-off that makes these types of mass shootings less frequent.

Swimming out to sea would be a horrible choice - just running or even walking on land - would be faster way to get away.

They were on an island that is about 24 acres large. The mainland was ~600 meters away. By "out to sea" I assume most of them were actually swimming for shore. Hitting a swimmer that's any distance off shore would be very difficult anyway (mostly submerged, waves, glare, etc.). If you are a strong swimmer, not a bad option.

[Conan71]

I disagree.

As you are aware, I am proficient with a 30 round AK-47 and with a 5 shot bolt action Mauser. With the Mauser 5 rounds on target at 50 meters (generally an old propane tank or tire rim) takes me about 10 seconds, to pull down and reload with an oiled stripper clip will take me about 5 seconds (unless I get the stupid clip caught in the bandoleer, like I always do). So to put 30 rounds on that target would take me 1:30 - and I feel like I'm hustling when I'm doing this. With the AK I can put 30 rounds on in under 30 seconds, and I feel like I'm being methodical. Even faster with a .223 AR-15 style weapon (vs. 7.62 x 39mm with the clunker bolt mechanism). I'm happy to go out and time trial this, and not to brag (I'm sure many, many people are faster)... but because its fun.

Much of the additional time is in resetting the rifle after the pounding from an 8mm cartridge, but resetting the bolt also requires an extra half second and some degree of losing your site picture. Reloading the magazine is self explanatory, I simply have to do it 6 times more often. Obviously, if the target was close enough to "feel" it out instead of carefully aiming, I'd be able to spray and pray much, much faster with the AK as the time between trigger pull would be nil.

In many circumstances some of the victims will be unable to flea and will hide. But if it takes someone three times longer to shoot them, help has three times longer to come to their aid (be it on-site help or otherwise). They also have three times longer to hide, barricade themselves, bust out a window, or find an avenue of escape. Additionally, in many instances the initial burst is the worst of the carnage: the bar area in Pulse, the cafeteria in Columbine, or the first couple of minutes in Dallas. If that first burst is limited to 5 or 10 shots, that's 20 people less people shot. If there is someone with a concealed carry, they have a much better opportunity to respond and defend themselves against someone who has to reload, vs. someone with an assault rifle (again, as we saw in Dallas - being armed isn't a magic panacea). And while the extra time may not provide (much of) an opportunity to assail the attacker --- but it triples the amount of time available for alternatives.

Not sure how else to put it - the entire point of assault style weapons is to shoot as many people as quickly as possible. They aren't designed for hunting, they are lousy home defense weapons, and they aren't used for serious target shooting above plinking or speed competitions. Everyone owns them for the same reason I do - they're fun and they're cool.

While mass shootings are a minimal part of our problem with gun violence, their impact is disproportional to their actual death toll (I think because the victims are so much more likely to be impersonal people that were wrong-place, wrong time vs. most murders being a personal dispute of some kind). Surely we can find some sort of trade-off that makes these types of mass shootings less frequent.


They were on an island that is about 24 acres large. The mainland was ~600 meters away. By "out to sea" I assume most of them were actually swimming for shore. Hitting a swimmer that's any distance off shore would be very difficult anyway (mostly submerged, waves, glare, etc.). If you are a strong swimmer, not a bad option.

Actually we are more in agreement than you think.

I'm simply speaking from the aspect of a gunman's quarry.  If he's firing a 30 shot Kalishnikov chambered for 7.62 x 54 rounds it sounds just the same as if he's firing a Russian bolt action Mauser.  Most people, unless they have military training, have the instinct to run and hide, not rush the shooter.  Most people hear a loud bang, they aren't thinking is it a semi-auto or bolt action, .38 revolver or double stack .40.  I'm probably not going to be bold enough to bum rush the shooter regardless what he is firing.

I'm just saying, you can do all the destruction you like with a firearm until someone who is better trained or better skilled finally intervenes.  IMO, it's not the weapon that determines the quarry, it's the sickness of the assailant and knowing they will meet little resistance.

In the 5-10 minutes it will take for someone to quit texting their family and call 911, for the cops to arrive, for the cops to figure out where the shooter is and get a tactical shot on them, 20-30 souls could be lost regardless of the weapon of choice.  That's not really an exaggeration.

Someone else posted about public transportation hubs and their security.  I'm not going to mention the place, as people I interacted with are working within the local and federal guidelines for public safety and I'm not trying to denigrate people doing their job as being careless.  All I will say is it is within 250 miles of Tulsa and I suddenly don't feel so safe flying, riding a train, bus etc.  I was called out to look at replacing several heating systems in a multiple locations within a transportation complex. 

Once a representative from a prospective contractor is with one of the on-site maintenance people it would be easy to walk into locally and federally-controlled areas completely armed.  I most definitely was not armed, but let's just say, the metal detectors are for passengers only.  I'm really surprised we don't have more domestic incidents on rail, air, or bus. 

Really just shocked me to my core.  There is a HUGE sense of false security.  For the billions or trillions we have spent on supposed homeland security since 2001, it still has gaping holes.

[Vashta Nerada]

Also, your study is from large urban counties only which are going to have a far high black population than the overall country. Overall blacks (including black Hispanics) are 12.6% of the total population and make up about 36% of violent crime arrests while whites (including white Hispanics) make up about 60% of violent arrests.  But that's not the whole story, the rate that blacks are arrested is in itself is an example of bias. As an example black drivers that are pulled over are three times more likely to be searched than a white driver that gets pulled over, but those black drivers that are searched are 30% less likely to have drugs or illegal guns than the few white drivers that were searched. And that doesn't take into account that blacks are pulled over so many more times than whites.

See:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/07/11/arent-more-white-people-than-black-people-killed-by-police-yes-but-no/

Now as far as police shooting people, well lets just say the cops are not the ones loosing the "War on Cops."

The rate at which whites are killed by cops in this country is astounding. Dozens of times worse than other developed countries.
And the rate that blacks are killed by cops is double that of whites.
And the rates Native Americans and the mentally ill are killed is even worse then blacks.
Put this in perspective. Last year in Oklahoma 28 people were killed by cops. 12 of them were black, when blacks are less than 10% of the population.
Oklahoma has 4 million people. Germany has 80 million people, 20x the population of Oklahoma and in the last five years German cops have killed 31 people.
Oklahoma's cop kill rate is 80 times that of Germany, and our kill rate of blacks is 10 times higher than the overall population. 800 times higher than Germany. 800 Times!!!.

We have a very serious problem and race is an important factor, but even that aside, something is very, very wrong with how police act in this country.

Seriously, If 1,134 Americans were dying every year from terrorism, you would demand something be done. 

Where are the Bengazi Police Accountability hearings on the Hill?




Ouch.  Look who's Number 2:  


Seems there's no solution.  Not so.  Just not an easy solution when powerful groups dont want to give up any power.

[Conan71]

Nice, France.  84 dead so far, killed by a delivery truck.  The driver was armed with a handgun, fake rifles, and fake grenades according to police.

Note, no semi-auto weapon. 

That's over 250 killed in the last two weeks by a motor vehicle of some sort in mass killings, including the car bombing in Iraq.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/14/europe/nice-truck-attack-live-blog/

The problem is obviously much larger than automatic weapons. 

[heironymouspasparagus]

Nice, France.  84 dead so far, killed by a delivery truck.  The driver was armed with a handgun, fake rifles, and fake grenades according to police.

Note, no semi-auto weapon. 

That's over 250 killed in the last two weeks by a motor vehicle of some sort in mass killings, including the car bombing in Iraq.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/14/europe/nice-truck-attack-live-blog/

The problem is obviously much larger than automatic weapons. 

Our "go to" solution is to go after the guns - because "the light is better". 


It's extremely difficult to face the real problem and try to find a real solution.

[Conan71]

Our "go to" solution is to go after the guns - because "the light is better". 


It's extremely difficult to face the real problem and try to find a real solution.

I call it intellectual laziness.  It makes as much sense as simply throwing more money at poor school performance without actually doing any sort of analysis or follow up as to how the money will actually help increase performance and help those doing the worst in the public school system.

If there were proven methodology to show that paying teachers more makes them care more ergo our kids do better, you'd never hear any derision out of me when teacher's unions complain.

It doesn't matter if it's poor academic performance or someone is bent on killing a bunch of people.  There are societal problems for which draconian restrictions or dumping billions of dollars down squirrel holes will not cure if we aren't going to be bold enough to seriously deal with root causes.

[heironymouspasparagus]

I call it intellectual laziness.  It makes as much sense as simply throwing more money at poor school performance without actually doing any sort of analysis or follow up as to how the money will actually help increase performance and help those doing the worst in the public school system.

If there were proven methodology to show that paying teachers more makes them care more ergo our kids do better, you'd never hear any derision out of me when teacher's unions complain.

It doesn't matter if it's poor academic performance or someone is bent on killing a bunch of people.  There are societal problems for which draconian restrictions or dumping billions of dollars down squirrel holes will not cure if we aren't going to be bold enough to seriously deal with root causes.

I am fiscally very conservative, and also want assurance that we will get some added value for the money.  At this point, we know for a fact that the class sizes are increasing, and that is a known predictor of reduced learning opportunity. 

We know for a fact that we are way below all our 'contemporary' surrounding states in teacher pay.  That should be an immediate correction so that we at least have a chance of holding our own with the surrounding states.  Both in retention and attracting comparable new recruits.  We can even leave TX out of it, since they are such a huge population compared to ours.  When we compare unfavorably to Mississippi, that alone should just scare the dog-slobber out of us!!


And one thing we should at least put some 'seed money' into is looking into one of those societal issues - until we try it, we won't know if it is another Colorado style success path or not.  It is how to get parents engaged and participating in their kids education and future!  This was a problem when I was a kid.  When my kids were in school.  Grandkids, and now the great grandkids.  We have NEVER even looked at it beyond a lamentation or two and wringing of hands/gnashing of teeth!!

Kaiser has funded what appears to be some really good pre-school stuff in the area.  Maybe some of their people could provide input into the school arena?  In a non-threatening manner so that the school people won't "raise their shields".  Yeah...I know...dreamland stuff there...  We have silos built around these things that should have open, wide based communications and discussion.

[Vashta Nerada]

Nice, France.  84 dead so far, killed by a delivery truck.  The driver was armed with a handgun, fake rifles, and fake grenades according to police.

France is going to have to register trucks, possibly banning those with large capacities that are popular with terrorists.

[Vashta Nerada]

We do indeed have a serious problem.  We have social structures that have grown to excuse, ignore, and in many cases admire thugism, and criminal activity as a form of status and survival. So much so, that a culture has developed. ... The solution will need to come from within the community. The social illness will need to be diagnosed. The culture will need to change.  Until that happens, it will continue.

Maybe its the "Im above the law" privileged mindset.  
How about a nice, Tulsa-centric example:


It appears the 59-year-old kicked Montgomery in the head while he lay prone on the ground.
The camera emerges on the other side of the car, and Montgomery can be seen holding his left hand to his head.

"F--- you, I'm suing you," Montgomery said while on the ground.
"Good, I'm a cop," the man with the gun responds, later saying he's retired.
"Next time I'm going to shoot him right in the back of the f------ head," the armed man said.

A bystander responds, "No, you can't do that, he's not armed."

(TPD Spokesman) Ashley said he couldn't comment as to whether the armed man might have committed a crime because he doesn't have information regarding what took place prior to what the video shows.  (Interesting since TPD usually doesnt make excuses for most gunmen.....)
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/local/video-alleged-golf-club-thief-held-at-gunpoint-in-tulsa/article_182bc694-25e1-5b5c-97a9-a5905db27140.html



"I'll shoot your dick off."  Police have not yet responded to an open records request for the 911 call or incident reports.
https://www.readfrontier.com/tpd-spokesman-man-pulled-gun-alleged-thief-claimed-cop-not-cop/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJ9xCemELew

[patric]

Aside from YouTube comparisons between U.S. Police and European, there are some empirical theories:


The key element that ensures the legitimacy of law enforcement and makes people willing to cooperate with police is something called "procedural justice." That includes the "quality of decision-making" -- such as when the police let a suspect have his say without interruption -- and the "quality of treatment," or the respect for a person's dignity.

People don't generally cooperate with the police out of a fear of retribution, according to Tyler, but rather because their sense of "procedural justice" is satisfied.

Based on that concept, it's easy to explain why Russia, where people perceive the police to be unfair and feel little obligation to obey officers, has a much higher crime rate than Denmark, where people report the strongest obligation to obey the police among European countries.

Fryer's recommendation is an economist's take on Tyler's idea: "Increase the expected price of excessive force on lower level uses of force." The Harvard professor wrote:

    The appealing feature of this type of policy experiment is that it does not require officers to change their behavior in extremely high-stakes environments. Many arguments about police reform fall victim to the "my life versus theirs, us versus them" mantra. Holding officers accountable for the misuse of hands or pushing individuals to the ground is not likely a life or death situation and, as such, may be more amenable to policy change.

It's much easier, however, to raise the price of using a gun -- movements such as "Black Lives Matters" do so by increasing pressure on police departments -- than to fix the problem of lower-level violence. It's a matter of cop skills as much as motivation. Karl Klockars of the University of Delaware wrote,

    Force certainly need not result in serious physical or mental injury to be deemed excessive. Moreover, it need not (and usually will not) be the product of malicious or sadistic behavior. It can spring from good intentions as well as bad, mistakes and misperceptions, lack of experience, overconfidence, momentary inattention, physical and mental fatigue, experimentation, inadequate or improper training, prejudice, passion, an urge to do justice or demonstrate bravery, misplaced trust, boredom, illness, a specific incompetence, or a hundred other factors that might influence an officer to behave in a particular situation in a less than expert way. Excessive force should be defined as the use of more force than a highly skilled police officer would find necessary to use in that particular situation.
http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-07-11/focus-on-police-shootings-obscures-larger-problem


Contrast this with the inflammatory rhetoric from Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke, who is "at war"
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/david-clark-blames-black-lives-matter-police-shootings

and some of that "nonsense" data, from Harvard University:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/upshot/surprising-new-evidence-shows-bias-in-police-use-of-force-but-not-in-shootings.html