The number of shootings in New York City has spiked by 13 percent so far this year, though the murder rate is on track to hit a 50-year low, a statistical paradox that experts said reflects quick medical response.
As of Sunday, some 507 people had been struck by bullets since Jan. 1 in New York City, up from 448 in the comparable period a year ago, according to data compiled by the New York City Police Department.
There has been a particular uptick in shootings over the past month, with 121 victims of gunfire over a 28-day period ending Sunday, compared with 86 for the same period last year, marking a 41 percent increase.
But homicides have continued to fall in the nation's largest city. There were 120 murders reported so far in 2014 compared with 140 a year earlier, a 15 percent decline, the data indicated. That puts the city on track to set a new low after posting a total of 333 murders last year, the fewest homicides recorded in citywide crime statistics dating back to 1963.
Police Commissioner William Bratton has said spikes and declines in crime rates are not unusual.
The declining homicide rate, despite an increase in shooting victims, reflects in part improved emergency medical response time, said Steven Messner, a criminal justice professor at the State University of New York at Albany.
Isn't that interesting. It seems the gun rights fanatics have been trying to pull a fast one over on us, again. Murder rates are dropping overall (just slightly) but the number of shootings has been increasing. Combined with the fact that fewer and fewer people own guns, in other words the average number of guns per (gun owning) capita has increased, this destroys one of their main talking points: more guns means less crime. Ha, take that.
Ha, take what? You just cited stats showing an increase in shootings in NYC which has a near total ban on citizens having guns. An increase in shootings might be significant if it was nationwide, or in an area with more respect for gun rights rather than data cherry picked from one city.
ReplyDeleteAs for the "fewer people owning guns" shtick, you keep harping on that old saw without providing evidence, yet we keep seeing more and more new shooters all the time. Repeating a lie over and over . . . makes gun controllers Feel better.
You're the one repeating the lie about new shooters. Are you talking about your own little circle of shooters? Or are you basing that on news reports on the internet?
DeleteYou guys used to claim that the boom in gun sales a few years ago was proof of more gun owners until it was shown not to be. People who own guns own more guns than they did last year or five years ago.
I did indeed provide evidence of that in a recent post about Gallup Polls.
"People who own guns own more guns than they did last year or five years ago."
DeleteAnd there are more people owning them, as evidenced by your recent post about Gallup polls.
That's not what the Gallup polls showed. Look again.
Delete"People who own guns own more guns than they did last year or five years ago."
DeleteHere is what you said. And here is the poll you cited,
http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2014/11/fascinating-gallup-polls.html
Which seems to show a 5% increase in the number of Americans with guns in their homes.
We talked about this before. You choose only the last marker on the graph to make your point. The overall trend is clearly downward though, right?
DeleteMike, I've given good sources in the past for proof that the number of actual gun owners has risen, and not just the number of guns that each owns.
DeleteIf you want to base your claim on a phone survey, you're quite welcome to. I'm quite willing to wait and see if the upward trend in ownership continues to rise, or not.
Why is Mike's survey phoney and your numbers are not?
DeleteI never said Mike's data is phony. Just not as accurate, since its a survey and prone to a margin of error. The sources I've given in the past have been real numbers linked to hard data.
DeleteFor example, to own a firearm in Illinois, you need to get a Firearm Owner's ID or FOID. The one card is good for multiple guns owned and can be used for multiple purchase. This eliminates the claim regarding multiple purchases by one person. One ID equals one owner.
And it appears that the Illinois State Police are having trouble keeping up with demand due to the growing numbers,
"The Illinois State Police (ISP), Firearms Services Bureau, (FSB) has received a record number of FOID card applications since May 2012. For example, in January 2013, the ISP FSB, received 61,172 FOID applications. As a comparison, in January 2012, the ISP FSB, received 31,655, which had been the highest number of FOID applications received during the month of January in years prior to 2012."
http://www.isp.state.il.us/foid/
Even the Gallup poll which Mike contends shows a general decline long term has shown an increase this past year which coincides with the majority of those polled now placing gun rights as a higher priority than gun control.
And, as I told Mike, I'm perfectly ok with waiting to see if this one year increase repeats next year. Plus I have personally done my part to increase numbers of gun owners and participation in the shooting sports.
What shooting sports? Do you teach people to hunt? I thought you were military? The military teaches people to kill.
DeleteI've gifted a friend recently with a carry permit class. I've also been teaching my children to shoot. The oldest is in the school trap league and has completed a hunter safety course. Next oldest while learning well isn't really into shooting at this point. Next one after that is very good and very interested. Youngest, hard to tall at this point.
Delete"I thought you were military? The military teaches people to kill."
I am military, and likely will be till they kick me out. Its interesting that you understand the true purpose of the armed forces. Its much like a firearm and completely dependent on the one who wields it, be it for good, or evil.
I'm an NCO, and the job of all NCO's are to train soldiers. I teach them to shoot effectively and accurately. I also teach things like rules of engagement and escalation of force.
Fine, but I'll call you out when you say "teaching shooting sports" I don't include your own children. You implied you taught classes to the masses.
DeleteAh, but I teach anyone who asks. I don't limit myself to soldiers and family. And except for training soldiers, which is my profession, I don't charge a dime.
DeleteWho has asked? How many classes do you teach sport shooting to? You do tend to make claims you can't back up.
DeleteI've instructed about twenty in the last year, either singly or in pairs. What claims are you suggesting I'm making that can't be backed up?
Delete"If you want to base your claim on a phone survey"
DeleteThat's you saying Mike's survey is phoney.
" Plus I have personally done my part to increase numbers of gun owners and participation in the shooting sports."
"I've gifted a friend recently with a carry permit class"
It's not quite clear, do you give classes, or gift classes?
"I'm an NCO, and the job of all NCO's are to train soldiers."
I wasn't talking about soldiers, but training civilians in your claim of teaching "sporting classes."
When you get your story straight, get back to me.
"I've gifted a friend recently with a carry permit class"
DeleteIt's not quite clear, do you give classes, or gift classes?"
In this case, I purchased a carry permit class for a friend since I'm not currently certified to instruct such classes.
"I wasn't talking about soldiers, but training civilians in your claim of teaching "sporting classes."
I currently teach both, and my training of civilians is limited to those I know and who ask. I have been considering doing more formalized teaching after I retire from the service. Either by becoming a certified carry permit instructor or by becoming involved in Project Appleseed. Though I also want to throw in teaching my other love also, motorcycling.
So... You're telling us shootings have increased in one city where they just passed the SAFE act. What? New York isn't SAFEr???
ReplyDeleteWhat about the rest of the country?
SJ and TS got it out quicker than I and right they are.
ReplyDeleteYou guys are saying what? Because gun murder rates go up and down (a normal occurrence) that their is no gun problem?
ReplyDelete"Because gun murder rates go up and down (a normal occurrence) that their is no gun problem?"
DeleteI've never suggested that Fred. It just seems a bit confusing since the normal claim is that strict gun laws reduce gun violence. Except when real numbers disprove it, then its caused by "other factors".
The only thing I'm sure of from this article is that the city's medical response procedures have improved resulting in more lives saved. A good thing.
I can't think of a law that has stopped 100% the crime that law is aimed at. That doesn't mean we eliminate that law, or don't pass laws because they don't work 100%. We do what we can and hope we can stop some of the needless crimes and deaths. Makes sense to me that trying to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the deranged would reduce gun violence, if we do nothing then certainly we will not reduce gun violence.
DeleteSarge was clearly talking about a lack of any reduction in violence.
Delete"the normal claim is that strict gun laws reduce gun violence. Except when real NUMBERS disprove it, then its caused by "other factors". "
DeleteThere are always other factors. Gun availability is only one of them, but it is a concrete one which, if addressed, would result in a reduction in gun violence.
Gun availability is only one of them, but it is a concrete one which, if addressed, would result in a reduction in gun violence.
DeleteDon't you worry, Mikeb--gun availability is being "addressed," and in just the right direction.
"the normal claim is that strict gun laws reduce gun violence"
DeleteI was responding to this SS comment. I disagree that there is no reduction in violence, the facts say differently.
More people being shot, and fewer people dying? Sounds as if guns are becoming less lethal. How will the Violence Policy Center spin that? Sugarmann has been arguing that as manufacturers find ways to make guns of higher capacity, and capable of firing more powerful rounds, lethality keeps going up.
ReplyDeleteYou're playing dumb again. Medical emergency services are improving all the time.
DeleteMedical emergency services are improving all the time.
DeleteImproving faster than the supposed increase in the "lethality" of firearms and ammunition? Have you told Sugarmann about that?
Besides, I thought the U.S. health care system sucked. Are you going "jingoistic" on us, Mikeb?