Just like there's shared responsibility when things go wrong, in cases like this where things improve, there's shared credit. Mayor Bloomfield certainly deserves his share. Of course there are many factors, but decreasing gun availability is one of them.
There were days upon days in New York City when not a single person was murdered in 2009. Two such stretches, in February and March, lasted nearly a week each.There were some pockets of the city where homicide was a singular occurrence: 12 of the city’s 77 police precincts, in locations as varied as Hamilton Heights, in Upper Manhattan, and Park Slope, Brooklyn, had logged one each through Sunday.
The story line of murder in New York is one that has been undergoing constant revision since 1963, when the Police Department began tracking homicides in a way that officials now deem reliable. (Before then, homicides were not counted until they were solved.) There have been rises — the number peaked at 2,245 in 1990 — and subsequent falls. But there have never been as few homicides as this year.
The city is on track, for the second time in three years, to have the fewest homicides in a 12-month period since the current record keeping system began. As of Sunday, there had been 461; the record low was in 2007, when there were 496 for the entire year.
What's your opinion? Is New York City becoming safer and safer? Is it now the safest big city in America, as we read in another report recently?Curbing gun use is linked to lowering the homicide rate, officials said, and Mr. Kelly lauded the mayor’s effort to stop illegal guns from flowing into New York, saying 90 percent of the guns that are confiscated after they are used in crimes come from out of state. He also cited the department’s program of questioning and frisking some people on the streets as a “lifesaving” strategy that had led to the seizure of 7,000 weapons this year, including 800 guns.
“We have a policy of engagement, and I think it’s working,” Mr. Kelly said. “We believe young people who may have a gun think twice before they take it out on the street.”
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Could it simply be that trauma care and medicine are getting better? Has anyone checked the occurrence of aggravated assault instead?
ReplyDeleteAnd it is no surprise that city officials credit Bloomberg. You know, the one that signs their paychecks.
NYC has seen falling crime rates, especially gun crime, before Mayor Bloomberg.
ReplyDeleteRemember, Giuliani also supported the assault weapons ban, licensing and registration and other gun control regulations.
--JadeGold
Of course there are many factors, but decreasing gun availability is one of them.
ReplyDeleteNew York City hasn't changed its gun laws during its precipitous crime drop, so if there's been a change in gun availability, it hasn't been because of new laws.
New York City's steep crime reductions are largely a result far more effective police methods that were implemented by Giuliani. Really, if every city implemented those methods, we'd have a much lower crime rate overall. The problem is, New York City can afford a huge police force, largely because the financial industry throws off so much money. A city like Detroit or Philadelphia isn't blessed with such a lucrative tax base to pay for a large, expensive police department.
New York City isn't an anomaly that can be correlated to their gun control efforts. Murders were down throughout the United States in 2009.
ReplyDeleteJadeGold: "Remember, Giuliani also supported the assault weapons ban, licensing and registration and other gun control regulations."
ReplyDeleteAnd when NYC crime was increasing, and reached its all-time high...
...did NYC have gun control and did its mayors support gun control?
Mayor Bloomfield? Ha!
ReplyDeleteThe evolution of Rudy Giuliani’s views on gun control is an interesting story and offers much insight into the gun control issue.
ReplyDeleteWhen Rudy Giuliani was first elected Mayor of NYC it was big national news, for he was a “conservative” Republican in a liberal Democratic city. Of course, Giuliani was at the time one of the most liberal elected officials in the Republican Party, conservative only by NYC standards.
Once elected, Giuliani gave many interviews in which he added details to positions outlined in his campaign. When asked about gun control, he said that he believed that all gunowners in the US should be licensed.
What happened next seemed to genuinely surprise Mayor Giuliani. Many of the Democrats who had opposed his election now praised him for his gun control stance. Attorney General Janet Reno gave a speech lauding Giuliani, and President Clinton invited him to the White House. Rudy was delighted by all the adulation.
Soon, in another interview, he was again asked about gun control. When told that many NYC gunowners opposed his idea, Giuliani said that they should get behind his plan, because the national licensing system he envisioned would be easier than the NYC licensing with which they already had to comply. He was asked if an easier national licensing system might then result in more licensed gunowners in NYC. Giuliani said that that would not be a problem, because the additional gunowners would be screened and trained, and would therefore only be “good guys.”
A strange thing happened: Some “moderate” gunowners in NYC and elsewhere sat up and took notice. Might Rudy Giuliani be that very rare species, a reasonable gun control advocate with whom “moderate” gunowners might work out compromises?
But unknowingly, Giuliani had attacked not one but two sacred cows of gun control. Many of his new Democrat friends now denounced his new statements on gun control. What had he done?
Giuliani had said that the national licensing system he envisioned would be easier than the NYC licensing system and would replace it. But all major gun control advocates actually oppose national gun control. Their frequent claim that national gun control is their goal is one of their biggest lies. Every national law they propose is such that any state, county, or town can keep or add harsher gun laws or gun bans. Licensing in NYC would not become easier with this type of national law, and major gun control advocates vehemently oppose any national gun control that might change that..
Also, Giuliani had said that more licensed gunowners would not be a problem, because the additional gunowners would be screened and trained, and would therefore only be “good guys.” However, it is dogma among major gun control advocates that guns and gunowners are bad, bad, bad. Any system that results in more legal gunowners, no matter the screening and training, is therefore bad as well. One need only look at all the “studies” that they churn out showing that households with guns were “xx times” more likely to incur gunshot injury, and states with higher gun ownership had higher rates of “gun violence.” If compliance with any gun control law is not difficult enough to drastically reduce the number of legal gunowners, gun control advocates will always demand a harsher new law.
Stung by the criticism by his new Democrat friends, Giuliani said that he may have misspoken, and needed to re-think his gun control ideas. Soon Mayor Giuliani had adopted all the “standard” gun control positions.
For one fleeting and hopeful moment, Rudy Giuliani had seemed to be a breath of fresh air, a reasonable gun control advocate with whom gunowners might work towards some reasonable compromise.
But despite the courage he later showed in other areas, he had wimped out on gun control early in his term.
Gunowners who had followed this story now had even more reinforcement for their cynicism and their opposition to gun control in view of the true motives of gun control advocates.
What Sebastian omits, of course, is that part and parcel of the effective policing effort has been strict gun laws.
ReplyDeleteSebastian also misleads WRT the size and expense of the NYC police force. It is the largest in the US--as befits the nation's most populous city--but its ratio of police to population is on a par with many large cities including Detroit, San Diego, Philadelphia, etc.
NYC--pre 2000--used to have the largest ratio but because of relatively low salaries, it has seen officers migrate to higher paid jobs elsewhere and to the NYFD.
Sebastian also omits the fact that NYC (as well as DC) police departments have responsibilities not often seen by other cities such as frequent crowd control and protection of foreign dignitaries/embassies and IGOs.
--JadeGold
New York City has about 44,000 police officers in its force. That's 5.4 police officers per 1000 residents. Philadelphia is 4.3 per 1000 residents, and Detroit is 3.8 per 1000 residents. Washington D.C. is actually pretty high, at 6.3 residents per 1000, though D.C. Metro Police are noted for incompetence. Just so we're not accused of trying to hide something.
ReplyDeleteBut I wasn't claiming that it's only the size of the police force that matters. It also matters how they are used. Giuliani's real innovation was concentrating on lifestyle crimes... basically stuff the police used to not pay much attention to, but which made the city a shitty place to live. And yes, he also stepped up enforcement of the city's gun laws, but I don't think too many people would object to gun toting criminals being removed form the streets, even if we don't agree with all the gun laws in their entirety.
But all major gun control advocates actually oppose national gun control.
ReplyDeleteI am not a major gun control advocate then since the only way "gun control" could work would be through national regulation. There needs to be a strong baseline to prevent trafficking firearms.
Every national law they propose is such that any state, county, or town can keep or add harsher gun laws or gun bans.
Funny, but when I looked up Vermont's gun laws there was this disclaimer:
Please be aware that Vermont does not at this time require or issue gun permits. Some Vermont towns and cities do have local ordinances, so if you are planning on visiting, it would be wise to contact the local police chief to find information pertaining to local information.
http://www.dps.state.vt.us/vtsp/faq1.html#VermontGun
I sort of remember that one of the Founders' complaints was that their legislatures were bound by a foreign jurisdiction (Britain). It seems to be that freedom and liberty should therefore include the ability for local jurisdictions to do make local legislation without outside interference. Otherwise, what was the point of independence from Britain if someone who lives elsewhere can make decisions for you?
Funny, but for all the talk of fighting tyranny via the Second Amendment, I am seeing it being used to justify tyranny. In particular, the destruction of DC's gun laws by a thwarting of democratic process.
As I said about DC's gun laws, which applies to NYC's and Chicago's, is that they are locally legislated and popular with the locals, but they upset people who don't live in those jurisdictions.
"New York City has about 44,000 police officers in its force."
ReplyDeleteThose numbers are over a decade old.
More recently, the police force numbers about 36,000.
" though D.C. Metro Police are noted for incompetence. "
Well, there's a truly substantive statement that has nothing to do with reality.
--JadeGold
Laci: It seems to be that freedom and liberty should therefore include the ability for local jurisdictions to do make local legislation without outside interference.
ReplyDeleteBut Laci also writes: "the only way gun control could work would be through national regulation."
Doesn't that interfere with "the ability for local jurisdictions to make local legislation"?
If a locality does not want a waiting period but there is a federal waiting period law, then the wishes of the locality are overruled.
My main point is that "national regulation" sounds like just that, but that's not what gun control advocates want. What they want is a near-endless amount of laws that are "national" that would be imposed upon every locality, but those laws would NOT define the requirements for gun ownership, because they also want East Podunk to ban big guns, West Podunk to ban little guns, North Podunk to charge a $300 fee and South Podunk to...you get the picture?
Laci: "Funny, but for all the talk of fighting tyranny via the Second Amendment, I am seeing it being used to justify tyranny. In particular, the destruction of DC's gun laws by a thwarting of democratic process. As I said about DC's gun laws, which applies to NYC's and Chicago's, is that they are locally legislated and popular with the locals, but they upset people who don't live in those jurisdictions."
ReplyDeleteFirst, Heller was a local -- a DC resident who applied for a gun permit and was denied. Did he get legal help from outside? Of course -- not at all unusual in civil rights cases.
And did the Court overturn a local law popular amongst the majority? Of course -- also not at all unusual in civil rights cases. The majority in a locality wants to prohibit abortion or intergration or gun ownership, and the minority appeals to the Court.
He also cited the department’s program of questioning and frisking some people on the streets as a “lifesaving” strategy that had led to the seizure of 7,000 weapons this year,
ReplyDeleteThis bothers me--it sounds like they are finding pretexts to search without actual probable cause beyond "that guy looks like a thug". The fewer rights residents have, the easier police can do their jobs.
Curbing gun use among criminals certainly helps, but curbing gun use among people who don't go around shooting others isn't necessary.
I'm also curious about the 6000+ non-gun weapons--NYC has some pretty strict laws on other means of self defense, even restricting pepper spray. Would the knife I bought at Walmart to open boxes be one of the confiscated weapons if I was one of the people stopped?
The "democratic process" does not give localities free reign to violate the Constitution any more than it was OK for certain localities in the South to violate the Constitutional Rights of blacks.
ReplyDeleteUnder your logic if a town in Mississippi reinstated slavery via the "democratic process" that would be OK even though it plainly violated the 13th Amendment.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see how fatally flawed your position is.
"Funny, but for all the talk of fighting tyranny via the Second Amendment, I am seeing it being used to justify tyranny. In particular, the destruction of DC's gun laws by a thwarting of democratic process."
ReplyDeleteIs the Supreme Court kicking down doors and forcing people to own guns who don't want them?
I agree with those who have pointed out that the majority wishes is not a good criterion. It's a good argument that there may be times when the majority of citizens in a particular city or state might want something that's clearly wrong, and the higher courts must be brought in.
ReplyDeleteSo, let's say most DC residents wanted to keep the old law, but one citizen solicited outside help and got it changed. Isn't this an example of forcing laws on people for their own good? Isn't this exactly the same thing the pro-gun folks continually revile gun control people of attempting, enacting legislation which people disagree with but which they need for their own good?
Earl said, "Mayor Bloomfield? Ha!"
ReplyDeleteDon't go so fast. Please elaborate. What does "Ha!" mean?
So, let's say most DC residents wanted to keep the old law
ReplyDeleteLet's say most DC residents want to bring back "Separate but equal" and are successful in doing so. One resident decides to challenge the constitutionality of said law and it is overturned by the courts.
Would the courts be "forcing laws upon an unwilling majority because of one man? Sure. They'd be forcing that majority to abide by the Constitution.
There have been many historical instances of the majority in certain localities wanting to retain flatly unconstitutional laws and being FORCED to abide by the Constitution.
Do you need a history lesson?
The Court did nothing other than force DC to abide by the Constitution.
"The Court did nothing other than force DC to abide by the Constitution."
ReplyDeleteOh, is that what they have in DC now? I don't know any 2nd Amendment guys who would agree with that. Isn't it still very difficult for residents of the District to get guns even though they can legally keep them in the house now?
Besides, you can describe this thing both ways. This is a case of legislation being forced on people who don't want it and feel that it will exacerbate the gun violence problem.
"The Court did nothing other than force DC to abide by the Constitution."
ReplyDeleteOh, is that what they have in DC now? I don't know any 2nd Amendment guys who would agree with that. Isn't it still very difficult for residents of the District to get guns even though they can legally keep them in the house now?
Besides, you can describe this thing both ways. This is a case of legislation being forced on people who don't want it and feel that it will exacerbate the gun violence problem.
The only question before the Court was keeping of a handgun in the home. That was it. The rest of DC's laws will be challenged or repealed, one way or another. Mike W's statement was accurate, at least in terms of how the Court answered the question put before it.
ReplyDeleteLet me borrow another quote from Justice Jackson, for a moment:
The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.
That begs the question, MikeB... what is your theory of government? If the people are to have absolute power, how do you preserve fundamental rights against tyranny of the majority? How do you prevent the people from voting away the rights of minorities? How would you have overcome slavery? Jim Crow? All of which were supported by majorities at ow time or another. A lot of your commenters here may touch on these questions, but let's boil it all down. Explain to us your theory of just government.
Sebastian:
ReplyDeleteI have a better idea. Explain YOUR idea of government.
I think Mike has been reading my site long enough by now to have some idea what my theory of government is. But in short, I believe in constitutional republicanism as the least bad of all the forms of government. That way you have some form of representative government that's accountable to the people, but that government is ultimately restrained by a constitution.
ReplyDeleteI think our government, as it was conceived in the constitution, and as it has been modified through amendment, is a good one. But we should follow it. We should hold the politicians to following it, even if it means giving up things we want government to do for us. Any government, even a democratically accountable government, will eventually trample over the rights of political minorities if not restrained by some mechanism.
Sebastian said, "Explain to us your theory of just government."
ReplyDeleteIs that a trick question, like the time Joe Huffman asked me to explain how I determine truth from falsity? Both questions could not be answered with a simple one or two sentence response. So, the inadequate answer or the refusal to answer can then be used to discredit me, as Joe and Linoge and others have done scores of times. You've probably seen some of their remarks, condescendingly ridiculing in their tone and repeated over and over again, that's the real key, the repetition.
Is that what you're question is, Sebastian? Joe's would require a philosophical tome to answer fully and correctly, yours one of political science. I'm just not up to it, sorry.
In case you were serious, I could say I like small government in most things. But about guns I think something has to be done and I'd like to see proper gun control implemented at the federal level.
Is that a trick question, like the time Joe Huffman asked me to explain how I determine truth from falsity? Both questions could not be answered with a simple one or two sentence response. So, the inadequate answer or the refusal to answer can then be used to discredit me, as Joe and Linoge and others have done scores of times. You've probably seen some of their remarks, condescendingly ridiculing in their tone and repeated over and over again, that's the real key, the repetition.
ReplyDeleteIt's not a trick question, and neither is Joe's. You can see my answer wasn't all that long. I'm not asking for a dissertation. But you also have a whole blog. It wouldn't be hard to explain over a series of comments or posts.
What Joe is getting at, and what I'm getting at, is to try to understand how you think.
Sebastian - Isn't it possible that MikeB isn't really engaging in critical thinking on this blog but rather parrotting Brady talking points.
ReplyDeleteSebastian, I believe you that it wasn't a trick question. I can add to what I said before, which I know wasn't much, that I don't really have a theory of a just government. I'm not very interested in many things that are of great importance, the economy and unemployment for example. So, I don't have a clear idea about what would be best other than what I said about less government in most areas and more in gun control.
ReplyDeleteYou say Joe's question was not a trick either, but my poor answer to that one earned me an avalanche of disparaging remarks from him and his friends. I guess you could spearhead the same thing with this answer if you want.
It wasn't a trick in the sense that Joe wasn't looking for a way to trick you, he was also looking to understand how you think. The reason Joe will keep bringing it up is because he won't believe you're worth the effort to engage with if you can't answer that question.
ReplyDeleteAt least that's my impression. I don't speak for him, so I can't say for sure. But that's my impression based on my understand of how Joe thinks.