Violent Crime Down

J

jdscholer

New member
I just read that violent crime decreased another couple percent since last year. It has decreased yearly for eight years now.

It would be interesting to see how those stats correlate with gun sales, gun ownership, gun restricted areas vs non restricted, etc.

I think I know how it relates, but it would be nice to see some hard numbers, and also see it reported.

For now, I guess we can just credit Eric Holder, and all his effort and concern.:rolleyes: jd
 
You must be looking at overall numbers. Violent crime has been up in many urban areas since the downturn in 2008. If you factor in how much lower it has been getting in other areas, over all, it's good, but, the economy certainly hasn't been on our side for keeping violence down. Locally domestic disturbances are up as well.
 
Double Naught Spy has had several quite good analyses of such in past threads. Might search on that. Or he might chime in.

It is not an easy relationship and legal gun ownership and crime rate drops are not simply linked.
 
Correlation does not prove causation.

There are probably many reasons for the reduction in crime over the last several decades.

In NYC, beginning in 1990, the crime rate dropped precipitously. Murders were reduced by two-third, felonies fell by 50%; and by 2000, felonies on the subways had declined 75% (The Tipping Point, Malcolm Gladwell, Back Bay Books, 2002, pg. 137). The RKBA and liberalized right to carry laws certainly had nothing to do with that.

I have no doubt that liberalized gun laws and an increased willingness for people to take responsibility for their own safety may be one factor in the Nationwide declining crime rate. But it's still only, at best, one factor, and it's very tough to prove.

What the data does clearly demonstrate is that right to carry laws and increasing the numbers of guns in private hands have not led to the bloodbaths that the anti-gun crowd so often predicts.

But we do have to be careful about making claims that we can't substantiate. When we do, it erodes our credibility.

What we can substantiate by collecting data on successful defensive gun use, especially published accounts, is that there are many ordinary people who have been able to avoid becoming victims of violent crime because they did have guns.
 
I looked this up in MN once when I saw a newspaper report indicating violent crime was down (county jails were actually hurting because of low 'enrollment'). Looked up the trend and sure enough, violent crime started trending down at the same time shall issue went into effect. Even more so, some of the violent crime is skewed. The bad areas in MPLS (gang on gang violence, ect) account for a lot of the violent crime which would indicate the rest of the metro and the state is even lower than the average shows.
 
There was a book out a few years ago called Freakonomics by the economist Steven Levitt. The guy makes the case that crime has gone down because abortion was made legal. He asserts that the people most likely to have abortions are also the ones most likely to raise children that commit crime. So, if those people have more abortions there will be fewer criminals. Not sure I totally buy his ideas, but interesting just the same.
 
The guy makes the case that crime has gone down because abortion was made legal. He asserts that the people most likely to have abortions are also the ones most likely to raise children that commit crime. So, if those people have more abortions there will be fewer criminals.
Click to expand...

Don't even wanna touch that one.

I just read that violent crime decreased another couple percent since last year
Click to expand...
Has it? Or have incidents reported simply decreased? How many assaults go unreported or sexual assaults for that matter? Simple answer: lots. Murder on the other hand is pretty darn hard to hide or not report.

Do burglaries and home invasions count as "violent?" Based on news reports alone, I would almost say they have risen.
 
A good stat to look at is how many crimes were thwarted when the victim pulled / displayed / used a gun.

I'm thinking that the average BG does not track if gun sales are going up or down.

Also, if gun sales are tracked by the number of background checks called in, that number is suspect as this would also include used guns.
 
I think that many folks are surprised, or even unbelieving of lower violence stats because the media is so good at sensationalizing violence; especially if it furthers their agenda.

Also, there is an ever growing segment of our population who watch so much television, and are so --- DUMB, that they actually believe that what they are watching is true life. Television and movies are actually changing history in the minds of a startling number of our society. jd
 
Demographics - fewer young men and more of them in jail

1) we have an aging population, like most industrialised nations. We have fewer people, as a proportion, in the likelier-to-offend cohorts. People just naturally raise less hell in their 40s and 50s.

2) we have the highest incarceration rate in the world. So a lot of the likelier-to-offend cohort is locked up. I'm not endorsing this approach - there's a lot of damage done and I think a lot of the wrong people are behind bars. But I do think it has an effect on the stats.

Violent crime really is down. The local news is getting better at making sure we hear all about what crime there is. Ask yourself why they're talking about home invasions on the other side of the country on the "local" broadcast. If it bleeds, it leads. You're more likely to tune in to something interesting, and crime stories are more interesting than the local junior jaycee parade.
 
Has it? Or have incidents reported simply decreased? How many assaults go unreported or sexual assaults for that matter? Simple answer: lots.
Click to expand...

You would be suprised how many incidents get "re-classified" to keep statistics looking good. I have seen assault turned in to "disorderly conduct." Grand theft auto can become "unauthorized use of a motor vehicle" under the right circumstances. There are numerous examples of one violation that can be turned in to another. It isn't uncommon on college campuses or when the chief thinks his job is on the line.

It will all get hard to hide soon. A lot of places are looking at closing prisons to trim the budget. So, I'm thinking will see an uptick in the statistics. Either that or people will have to get better at shuffling the numbers.
 
You would be suprised how many incidents get "re-classified" to keep statistics looking good.
Click to expand...

Might be to keep stats looking good, but I would hazard to say not the kind you think. For instance DUI knocked down to reckless Op, or assault to disorderly conduct, etc. - more for expediency than statistics. Conviction rates still go up.

Meaning, get offender to plead to a slightly lesser charge that they can both prove beyond reasonable doubt and close up in less time that it might take to take a case to trial.
 
The Freakonomics book had an analysis of Lott's claims and didn't find them credible. Started a debate but Lott doesn't come out looking that good I'm afraid.

There is a professional lit on the topic you can find through google search.
 
Stats are a funny thing and more than often can be explained away or turned to represent whichever side of any argument you happen to be sitting on.

As far as someone accepting a lesser charge(or a plea bargain) in a court hearing, charges put against a defendant by the DA/PA is usually like sueing someone. You sue for a million dollars for the hope of receiving $100,000.

A prosecuting attorney will put every charge they can against a defendant, knowing the defendant will not be convicted of a quarter of the charges but hoping for a conviction of certain lesser charges or a plea bargain of a certain charge. In other words, many of the charges that are usually put against a defendant that shouldn't have been at the onset are no more than bargaining chips that are going to be used in court at a later date.

Almost laughable to include court conviction statistics when trying to argue the rate of violent crimes....or any other crimes for that matter.
 
Might be to keep stats looking good, but I would hazard to say not the kind you think.
Click to expand...

I have to watch how I say things because of where I work. So, I'll just say that why probably varies from department to department. Each one has different external pressures that shape why they do the things they do. Unfortunately LEO work ends up being effected in large part by politics beyond the patrolman's control.
 
gaming the metrics - universal problem

Any time you provide an incentive to game metrics, by tying compensation or promotion to them, people will game them. You see it in schools: baseline for high stakes testing, sweep the bushes and drag in every developmentally disabled and behaviorally challenged kid. Next year, transfer or expel everybody you can. (reported by a friend in the Oxnard, CA school district)

In software testing, if you reward based on bug count, testers find stupid bugs to get their numbers up.

It's also tricky to account for better reporting and varying rates of victims coming forward. Rape victims are still shamed in court, disbelieved by cops, etc. But I think the stigma is, if anything, reduced compared with 20 years ago.

One thing I think it'd be hard to game is homicide stats. Did someone get offed, or not? I'd think it would be hard to shift that to "discharging firearm within city limits, " but maybe I underestimate the wiliness of bureaucrats.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top