For the third consecutive year, Flint has reached 50 homicides in one year.A couple things stand out for me in this sad story which make me question some of the commonly accepted "facts" about gun violence.
Three homicides on Sunday brought the city's homicide total to 51, according to the Flint Journal's count. There have been four homicides since Friday.
Here's a look back at the 51 lives lost to violence in Flint this year.
The pace of homicides this year is ahead of both 2011, when there were 57 homicides all year, and the record-breaking year 2010, when there were 66 homicides.
The city didn't record its 50th homicide last year until late October. In 2010, it hit 50 homicides in the first half of October, according to Journal records.
If you click on that link to the 51 victims, you'll see that a full 90% died by the gun. Yet, we always hear that about 60% of all murders are committed with a gun. Is it possible that Flint is that far off the national mean? Or is something wrong with that oft-repeated 60% claim?
Secondly, the pro-gun crowd keeps telling us that crime is going down, that gun violence is on the decrease, as if that's reason to abandon all attempts to lower it further. But, Flint, Michigan, like many other cities we read about seems to be getting worse all the time. Violence, especially gun violence increases year after year. How do we reconcile these two ideas?
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Yet, we always hear that about 60% of all murders are committed with a gun.
ReplyDeleteThe average for the whole United States is actually 67.5%. Some places actually have a higher rate, for example in D.C., with their strict gun laws, firearms are used in 75% of the murders. Vermont, on the other hand, with less restrictive gun laws, firearms are used in 28% of the murders. This information can easily be found on table 20 of the FBI Uniform Crime Report.
Bill, don't you question anything? Or do you just accept things without questioning them when they support your already decided idea?
DeleteDoes it make sense to you that when we itemize the incidents one by one in a particular city and come up with 90% that the overall average is only 67%?
mikeb, I question everything, and I report what the facts support. I get a copy of the UCR every year in print and digital format. I read it, cross check it, and use the information available. I also refer to BJS and CDC for information, it's you that blindly follows in the footsteps of VPC, Brady, et al.
DeleteBullshit Bill. My ideas are far more extreme than the Brady's and the VPC's.
DeleteWhen something doesn't make sense, I consider that regardless of where it comes from, perhaps it's wrong.
Mikeb, the problem here is that what makes sense to you isn't based on evidence, but on your biases.
DeleteNo, Greg, that's what you do. I make reasonable assumptions and ask good questions.
DeleteI choose to ask good questions and to make no assumptions that aren't grounded in evidence.
Delete"Flint, Michigan, like many other cities we read about seems to be getting worse all the time."
ReplyDeleteMy informed opinion is that Flint, Michigan has been imploding economically for several years. My observation throughout my life has been that the more bleak a region is -- economically speaking -- the more violent it is. The explanation is pretty simple. If an area is doing really well economically, just about everyone is working which does three things to prevent violent crime. First of all, everyone is busy (working) or resting (tired from working) and just doesn't have the time or energy to go out and be violent. Second, working people have a future to look forward to, typically a family and home, and at least a few possessions. In other words they have a stake in life and don't want to throw it all away over a stupid act of violence. Third, people who are working have a purpose in life: they feel useful, important, and proud of themselves.
A person who has none of that has basically nothing to lose. And they might feel desperate -- literally to eat and survive. A person who has nothing to lose and feels desperate to survive finds it a lot easier to violently attack someone for whatever reason.
IF you want to stop the violence (regardless of choices of weapons), fix those problems and the violence will all but disappear.
It's not about how bad Flint is. It's about why 90% of their murders are by the gun.
DeleteMikeb, are you incapable of understanding how a national trend can be in one direction, while certain areas move in the opposite direction? Let me help you follow that. Do you understand how the planet is warming up as a whole, while some areas will have colder winters? The same thing is happening here. I've suggested before that if we're concerned about safety, we should ban large cities.
ReplyDeleteActually I am capable of understanding that, you sarcastic bastard. My idea is 90% is too compelling to ignore and explain away.
DeleteMikeB I have no explanation for the 90% death rate. From a statistical perspective, it isn't a large enough sample size to project anything across the entire country with any confidence.
ReplyDeleteTwo plausible explanations for the local data:
(1) A group of four or so criminals who have extensive training/practice (which makes them much more lethal than your jellybean criminal) have committed most of the murders.
(2) Significant staffing reductions in both police and EMS have increased response times past a threshold causing many more victims to die that would have otherwise survived.
It's odd.
DeleteMikeb, Flint has had serious problems for decades. How people kill each other is not as important as the fact that they are doing the killing. The valid point here, though, is that Flint is an anomaly. We've seen you frequently want to use outliers to make social policy, but we're buying it.
ReplyDeletenot buying it.
Delete