A whole 'nother pragmatic look at gun-related violence
06-19-2015, 09:13 AM
#21
Boost Pope
Thread Starter
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,021
Total Cats: 6,588
I suspect what you'll see if you look more closely at the data is a correlation between homicide rate and poverty. In particular, if you go a city level (instead of state) and look at dense urban areas with low rates of legal gun ownership (NYC, Chicago, DC), you'll find a high crime rate, a high murder rate, and a high poverty rate.
In 2014, the murder rate in NYC was 4.01 per 100,000, which is below the US national average of 4.7 per 100,000. The rate of all violent crimes (murder, rape, robbery and assault) was moderately higher than the national average (461 per 100k as opposed to 385 per 100k), much of which is attributable to minor robbery of tourists, and the remainder of which mostly occurred in the outer burroughs of Brooklyn, the Bronx and Queens and involved disputes involving drug transactions and gang control of territory in and around the public housing projects, a problem unique to major cities.
Notably, the rate of property crime (burglary and larceny) in NYC is roughly half the US national average; 1,879 / 100k vs 3,917 / 100k in 2006, the latest year for which I found a convenient source of comparison.
Overall, the combined crimes rate in NYC is slightly lower than the national average, and the lowest of any city in the US of 1m+ population.
NYC is notorious for having strict gun control laws. All handguns must be individually licensed, carry permits are extremely rare, and mere possession of an unlicensed handgun is a felony offense.
Of course, there was a time when NYC was a dangerous city. The period of the 1960s - 1980s saw violent crime rates vastly higher than national averages, during a period of considerable racial and political turmoil, the peak of the gang wars, and the rapid uptake of crack cocaine. Since then, effective policing tactics including stop-and-frisk, combined with other initiatives, seem to have demonstrated that highly restrictive gun laws and extremely low rates of gun ownership do not correlate with high rates of overall crime, and do weakly correlate with low rates of murder and property crime.
Reply
0
0
06-19-2015, 09:15 AM
#22
What do you make of this:
The majority of crime in America is not reported and the majority of reported crime does not result in an arrest and in many jurisdictions, a significant minority of crimes are not prosecuted. Thus if you reach the stage where the criminal justice system is prosecuting you for a felony, either you have done something very wrong or the system is tired of seeing you back in court.
77 percent of felony defendants have at least one prior arrest and 69 percent have multiple prior arrests. 61 percent have at least one conviction and 49 percent have multiple convictions.
35 percent of those charged with felonies have 10 or more prior arrests and another 17 percent have between 5 to 9 arrests, thus 52 percent of charged felons have been arrested and before the courts many times.
40 percent of those charged with burglary and motor vehicle theft have 10 or more arrests. 30 percent of violent offenders have 10 or more prior arrests.
Source:
Repeat Felons Dominate the Criminal Justice System?Most Convicted Felons do not Serve Time in Prison?Part One
The majority of crime in America is not reported and the majority of reported crime does not result in an arrest and in many jurisdictions, a significant minority of crimes are not prosecuted. Thus if you reach the stage where the criminal justice system is prosecuting you for a felony, either you have done something very wrong or the system is tired of seeing you back in court.
77 percent of felony defendants have at least one prior arrest and 69 percent have multiple prior arrests. 61 percent have at least one conviction and 49 percent have multiple convictions.
35 percent of those charged with felonies have 10 or more prior arrests and another 17 percent have between 5 to 9 arrests, thus 52 percent of charged felons have been arrested and before the courts many times.
40 percent of those charged with burglary and motor vehicle theft have 10 or more arrests. 30 percent of violent offenders have 10 or more prior arrests.
Source:
Repeat Felons Dominate the Criminal Justice System?Most Convicted Felons do not Serve Time in Prison?Part One
Reply
0
0
06-19-2015, 09:19 AM
#23
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,493
Total Cats: 4,080
US is a very car-accident prone country, I think we should look at who we are allowing to own cars, more than one, and what size motor they can have.
Reply
0
0
06-19-2015, 09:24 AM
#24
Since then, effective policing tactics including stop-and-frisk, combined with other initiatives, seem to have demonstrated that highly restrictive gun laws and extremely low rates of gun ownership do not correlate with high rates of overall crime, and do weakly correlate with low rates of murder and property crime.
Reply
0
0
06-19-2015, 09:25 AM
#26
Boost Pope
Thread Starter
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,021
Total Cats: 6,588
Joe, you're not fooling anyone. You know perfectly well that the most effective deterrent for gun crime at a particular location is to simply make it a "Gun Free Zone". We can use schools, theaters, and church's to show what a great idea this is. You can sift through all the propaganda charts you want, we all know "Gun Free Zones" are the answer.
Reply
0
0
06-19-2015, 09:29 AM
#27
Junior Member
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Columbia, MD
Posts: 145
Total Cats: 14
Fixed it for you.
If the vast majority of firearm-involved murders are committed with guns stolen from their legal owners, then if criminals stopped stealing legally-owned guns, this would, over time, have the effect of eliminating the supply of stolen guns.
If the vast majority of firearm-involved murders are committed with guns stolen from their legal owners, then if criminals stopped stealing legally-owned guns, this would, over time, have the effect of eliminating the supply of stolen guns.
Reply
0
0
06-19-2015, 09:31 AM
#29
"Just take a look at traffic accident rates in most of Europe... they are half what ours are. We need to be more like Europe. We need to raise the minimum driving age to 18, we need weeks of drivers training, we need gas that costs 5x as much, we need engine displacement limits, we need blah blah blah"... engage career dissipation light.
Reply
0
0
06-19-2015, 09:39 AM
#30
Can you imagine a liberal politician using the same tactics to solve automobile accidents as they do gun-crime...
"Just take a look at traffic accident rates in most of Europe... they are half what ours are. We need to be more like Europe. We need to raise the minimum driving age to 18, we need weeks of drivers training, we need gas that costs 5x as much, we need engine displacement limits, we need blah blah blah"... engage career dissipation light.
"Just take a look at traffic accident rates in most of Europe... they are half what ours are. We need to be more like Europe. We need to raise the minimum driving age to 18, we need weeks of drivers training, we need gas that costs 5x as much, we need engine displacement limits, we need blah blah blah"... engage career dissipation light.
Reply
0
0
06-19-2015, 10:03 AM
#31
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 125
Total Cats: 10
You either decrease the amount of available guns, or you decrease the incidences of theft, yes? Which do you think is easier? (not a loaded question)
Since we're using the UK, cars, and petrol as a comparative argument:
Gasoline is expensive in the UK, because of that, manufacturers and consumers alike have taken to more fuel efficient vehicles. Is that to say that everyone adores driving their Fiat Panda over a F250 Super Duty? No, but they (manufacturers AND consumers) can at least recognize the value of downsizing. It reduces congestion, it reduces pollution, and it extends fuel supplies. Collectively, it's beneficial. Some nations are better at realizing these types of benefits than others...
Since we're using the UK, cars, and petrol as a comparative argument:
Gasoline is expensive in the UK, because of that, manufacturers and consumers alike have taken to more fuel efficient vehicles. Is that to say that everyone adores driving their Fiat Panda over a F250 Super Duty? No, but they (manufacturers AND consumers) can at least recognize the value of downsizing. It reduces congestion, it reduces pollution, and it extends fuel supplies. Collectively, it's beneficial. Some nations are better at realizing these types of benefits than others...
Reply
0
0
06-19-2015, 10:14 AM
#33
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 125
Total Cats: 10
Actually, NYC has relatively low rates of crime, despite what the Batman films would lead you to believe.
In 2014, the murder rate in NYC was 4.01 per 100,000, which is below the US national average of 4.7 per 100,000. The rate of all violent crimes (murder, rape, robbery and assault) was moderately higher than the national average (461 per 100k as opposed to 385 per 100k), much of which is attributable to minor robbery of tourists, and the remainder of which mostly occurred in the outer burroughs of Brooklyn, the Bronx and Queens and involved disputes involving drug transactions and gang control of territory in and around the public housing projects, a problem unique to major cities.
Notably, the rate of property crime (burglary and larceny) in NYC is roughly half the US national average; 1,879 / 100k vs 3,917 / 100k in 2006, the latest year for which I found a convenient source of comparison.
Overall, the combined crimes rate in NYC is slightly lower than the national average, and the lowest of any city in the US of 1m+ population.
NYC is notorious for having strict gun control laws. All handguns must be individually licensed, carry permits are extremely rare, and mere possession of an unlicensed handgun is a felony offense.
Of course, there was a time when NYC was a dangerous city. The period of the 1960s - 1980s saw violent crime rates vastly higher than national averages, during a period of considerable racial and political turmoil, the peak of the gang wars, and the rapid uptake of crack cocaine. Since then, effective policing tactics including stop-and-frisk, combined with other initiatives, seem to have demonstrated that highly restrictive gun laws and extremely low rates of gun ownership do not correlate with high rates of overall crime, and do weakly correlate with low rates of murder and property crime.
In 2014, the murder rate in NYC was 4.01 per 100,000, which is below the US national average of 4.7 per 100,000. The rate of all violent crimes (murder, rape, robbery and assault) was moderately higher than the national average (461 per 100k as opposed to 385 per 100k), much of which is attributable to minor robbery of tourists, and the remainder of which mostly occurred in the outer burroughs of Brooklyn, the Bronx and Queens and involved disputes involving drug transactions and gang control of territory in and around the public housing projects, a problem unique to major cities.
Notably, the rate of property crime (burglary and larceny) in NYC is roughly half the US national average; 1,879 / 100k vs 3,917 / 100k in 2006, the latest year for which I found a convenient source of comparison.
Overall, the combined crimes rate in NYC is slightly lower than the national average, and the lowest of any city in the US of 1m+ population.
NYC is notorious for having strict gun control laws. All handguns must be individually licensed, carry permits are extremely rare, and mere possession of an unlicensed handgun is a felony offense.
Of course, there was a time when NYC was a dangerous city. The period of the 1960s - 1980s saw violent crime rates vastly higher than national averages, during a period of considerable racial and political turmoil, the peak of the gang wars, and the rapid uptake of crack cocaine. Since then, effective policing tactics including stop-and-frisk, combined with other initiatives, seem to have demonstrated that highly restrictive gun laws and extremely low rates of gun ownership do not correlate with high rates of overall crime, and do weakly correlate with low rates of murder and property crime.
Does anyone see a correlation on these graphs? Easier to get guns; more guns to steal; what comes next?
Reply
0
0
06-19-2015, 10:19 AM
#36
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,493
Total Cats: 4,080
I'm beginning to think you're on the spectrum.
Gasoline prices around the world, 15-Jun-2015 | GlobalPetrolPrices.com
Gasoline prices around the world, 15-Jun-2015 | GlobalPetrolPrices.com
The differences in prices across countries are due to the various taxes and subsidies for gasoline.
All countries have access to the same petroleum prices of international markets but then decide to impose different taxes.
All countries have access to the same petroleum prices of international markets but then decide to impose different taxes.
Reply
0
0
06-19-2015, 11:04 AM
#40
Elite Member
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Huntington, Indiana
Posts: 2,885
Total Cats: 616
source
So, quite to the contrary of what you posit, I see that in Canada, major implementations of gun-control legislation are not followed by "significant increases" in the overall homicide rate, but rather by significant decreases.
So, quite to the contrary of what you posit, I see that in Canada, major implementations of gun-control legislation are not followed by "significant increases" in the overall homicide rate, but rather by significant decreases.
I don't have any fancy graphs, but the inverse your statement has not proven to be true, at least in the United States.
The expiration of the "assault weapons ban" is a pretty good example of this.
Despite the sunsetting of that bill, gun violence actually steadily decreased afterwards. This is despite the fact that gun ownership and number of firearms owned has skyrocketed in recent years.
An interesting chart from Smith and Wesson:
Reply
0
0
