Police departments across the country that have spent years boasting about plummeting crime numbers are now scrambling to confront something many agencies have not seen in decades: more bloodshed.
Houston, St. Louis, New Orleans and Baltimore have all seen significant spikes in the number of homicides this year. The totals are up in other cities, too, including New York and Chicago.
"We're in scary territory," said Peter Scharf, a professor at Louisiana State University who tracks homicides in New Orleans.
In Los Angeles, the number of slayings dropped slightly, but the number of shooting victims jumped more than 18 percent. And in Milwaukee, a homicide on Wednesday put the total for the year at 84 — just two fewer than happened in all of 2014.
It's too soon to assess whether the surge in killing marks the start of a trend after years of declines. But concern is growing that the increase could reflect a confluence of recent shifts, including deepening distrust of police that leads people to settle disputes themselves, officers who are afraid of being second-guessed and court rulings that make it easier than ever to own a gun. Tighter budgets that result in cuts to law-enforcement agencies could also play a role.
Some of the explanations vary from city to city. In Baltimore, the April death of Freddie Gray, a black man who suffered a fatal spinal-cord injury while in police custody triggered rioting. After six officers were charged in Gray's death, the number of arrests plummeted — a drop that raised questions about whether angry or fearful officers were slowing down their activity on the streets.
Here's Mike watching crime data:
ReplyDelete"Other factors...Other factors...Other factors...Other factors...Other factors...Other factors...Other factors...Other factors...Other factors...Other factors... wait! Crime just ticked up. It's the guns! More guns equals more crime! Obviously."
When something makes perfect sense, yes I'm gonna call it.
DeleteOver the last years tens of thousands of guns have been put into circulation - mainly in the hands of existing gun owners, but the total numbers are going up, up, up. Since you fanatics have succeeded in blocking such common sense measures as safe storage requirements and background checks on private sales, a certain percentage of these guns flow into the criminal world. Crime goes up.
If John Lott were right, why isn't crime dropping so fast that it would be clear?
Good point, TS. Actually, over time, we have had an increase in gun sales along with a trend toward decrease in violent crime.
DeleteI strongly object to the idea that those of us who want to protect our basic rights.... and don't want to harass/persecute/steam from innocent people are "fanatics".
As for background checks, these would go over a lot better if we were assured that the records of ownership/purchase were completely deleted after the background check was passed. No registries, please
For one, this article is not saying crime is up nationally, it is just picking a handful of cities. Even in the biggest crime drop years, you can always still find local increases.
DeleteMikeB: “When something makes perfect sense, yes I'm gonna call it.”
But the last 20 years haven’t made sense to you. And where the article talks about recent social unrest- I guess that doesn’t make sense to you either. Then the article goes on to say how arrests in Baltimore are down (though crime is up) meaning police are doing less police work- but na, that doesn’t make sense to you. Just that there are more guns, and it makes sense that 20 years later crime would go up in a handful of cities because of all these new guns. That makes perfect sense.
MikeB: “Over the last years tens of thousands of guns have been put into circulation…”
You mean tens of millions.
You're right. I was gonna change that to hundreds of thousands - it might actually be millions.
DeleteGiven the loose regulations regarding home storage and private sales, doesn't it make sense that many of those guns are slipping into the criminal world? (I should know better than to ask you a simple question and expect a simple and honest answer).
MikeB: “You're right. I was gonna change that to hundreds of thousands - it might actually be millions.”
DeleteNot just “millions”, tens of millions. Over five millions new guns are added to the supply every year. Now you tell me why crime has been going down for the past 20 years with more and more guns being added. Why did it wait until now (if crime is indeed universally going up, which we don’t know as of now).
Mike: “Given the loose regulations regarding home storage and private sales, doesn't it make sense that many of those guns are slipping into the criminal world?”
Sure, some of those guns end up in the criminal world. But “gun availability” is not related to crime rates, as I have showed you countless times. Criminals have all the guns they need, Mike. They had them before the buying boom, and they would have them even if you instituted “proper gun control” and confiscated half the weapons in the country. Do you really think there are scores of people who don’t commit crime, but want to commit crimes if only they could get a hold of a gun, but because they can’t they lead a straight life? Is that what you think? Because that is what you are suggesting with your statement that crime would go up because more guns are slipping into criminal hands.
I'm not suggesting that and you fucking know it. You love to exaggerate my position to the point that it sounds ridiculous.
DeleteThe point is gun availability is a problem. Will reducing it eradicate crime? Of course not - did you really want me to answer that?
Reducing gun availability to unfit and dangerous people - which would inconvenience you good guys - would reduce crime and the severity of crime. Fewer people will die in mass shootings. The reason you're not on board with that is the inconvenience part - unless you're more paranoid than that and go for the slippery slope, registration leads to confiscation bullshit.
That is what you are saying, Mike. I didn't use the words "eradicate crime", I am merely showing the logical progression of your statement that if more guns are entering the civilian market, more of them will be stolen, and crime would go up because "gun availability" for criminals went up. What that means is right now, in the United States, there are criminals waiting around to commit their ills, but they are not doing it because it's too hard to get a gun. And as gun buying goes up, it gets easier to get stolen guns, so more and more of those criminals who can't get guns are able to, so they now go out and commit crimes. This is what you are saying, which ironically starts with the concept that some criminals are not able to get guns in this country even giving our "loose gun laws" and rampant gun culture.
DeleteLet me propose an alternative (which I would think you would buy into). The current market for crimes guns is saturated. It is as easy as it needs to be for criminals to get guns, because there are simply plenty of guns. Plenty means there are more than enough. This means the ebb and flow of civilian gun ownership won't have an effect on criminals access to guns, because they have enough if it goes up, and they still have enough if it were to go down. I would think you antis would agree with this. There are guns everywhere, right?
You can also just think about the numbers that you keep citing, Mike. You keep talking about half a million guns stolen each year. But there aren't half a million guns leaving the criminal world each there (and that's only considering stolen guns, and not other ways criminals get guns). There certainly aren't nearly that many unique guns being used in crimes each year. Again, this speaks to market saturation. So don't you see how fluctuations in how many guns are stolen won't affect crime- even you were right about guns causing crime (which you're not).
DeleteThe saturation aspect of the problem means that strict gun control will not have an immediate effect. So, what, we should do nothing about the gun flow? We just give up?
DeleteNo, we should not do anything that involves harassing law-abiding gun owners.
DeleteInstead, we should just consider enforcing existing laws, which are quite stringent. But you have situations like this, where the laws are simply enforced:
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/01/23/david-gregory-arrest-affidavit-nbc-knew-he-would-violate-dc-gun-law
Gun criminal laughs in the face of the law, indeed.
This shows a lax attitude toward it as well:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/15/opinions/cevallos-fbi-background-check-roof-charleston/
Bungling, incompetent government employees. who are probably paid quite handsomely.... if they had been doing their job, this shooting would not have happened.
We don't have a gun problem in the US. We have plenty of regulation, a massive amount of it, to meet the requirements of the 2nd Amendment. If the existing laws were enforced, you'd see a real difference.
"http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/15/opinions/cevallos-fbi-background-check-roof-charleston/"
DeleteAn interesting article Anon. In your readings, have you seen anything that details when or even if the NICS determined Roof to be a prohibited person?
So, what, we should do nothing about the gun flow?
DeleteBingo! Give that man a kewpie doll!
MikeB: "The saturation aspect of the problem means that strict gun control will not have an immediate effect. So, what, we should do nothing about the gun flow? We just give up?"
DeleteThen you admit your answer to my first post was wrong? You blamed the violence increases in these cities to more guns being stolen because more guns have been purchased over the last decade. You now admit this is wrong, yes?
"Instead, we should just consider enforcing existing laws, which are quite stringent. But you have situations like this, where the laws are simply enforced:"
DeleteYou're thoughtlessly repeating what you've heard other thoughtless folks say. The "existing laws" do nothing to prevent bad guys from buying guns privately and they do nothing to encourage law abiding gun owners to lock their guns up at home. These are two of the major sources of guns flowing into the criminal world.
TS, your last comment is such a stretch I can't even follow your thinking - so, no, I don't admit anything. More guns means more guns are available for thieves. If we demanded safe storage from lawful gun owners starting now the beneficial effects would be delayed due to the saturation effect you rightly pointed out.
DeleteIf we demanded safe storage from lawful gun owners . . .
DeleteYou can "demand" whatever you want--and we'll just laugh and laugh as we rightfully reject your silly "demands."
Mike, you blamed the crime increase in these cities on more gun flow through theft because of the recent buying spree. See below:
DeleteMikeB: "Over the last years tens of thousands of guns have been put into circulation - mainly in the hands of existing gun owners, but the total numbers are going up, up, up. Since you fanatics have succeeded in blocking such common sense measures as safe storage requirements and background checks on private sales, a certain percentage of these guns flow into the criminal world. Crime goes up."
If the market is already saturated (which you admitted is the case), then a bit more guns being stolen is not going to affect crime rates. So it is safe to say "other factors" are at play here in these cities- you know, like you have been saying is the reason crime has been falling for the last 20 years.
Maybe I have to rethink that saturation thing. Is it so totally saturated that tens or hundreds of thousands of additional stolen guns have no effect at all? I don't know. But I see what you did. You got me to agree with one thing then used it to show a seeming contradiction with another thing I said. You're slick. But, you do not persuade.
DeleteYou got me to agree with one thing then used it to show a seeming contradiction with another thing I said.
DeleteA "seeming contradiction," Mikeb? Looks quite like the genuine article to me.
"Maybe I have to rethink that saturation thing."
DeleteAnother factor might be that theft is also declining over the long term.
"The rate of estimated larceny-thefts in 2013 was 1,899.4 per 100,000 inhabitants. From 2012 to 2013, the rate of estimated larceny-thefts declined 3.4 percent, and from 2004 to 2013, the rate decreased 19.6 percent. (See Tables 1 and 1A.)"
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/property-crime/larceny-theft-topic-page
MikeB: “Maybe I have to rethink that saturation thing. Is it so totally saturated that tens or hundreds of thousands of additional stolen guns have no effect at all? I don't know. But I see what you did. You got me to agree with one thing then used it to show a seeming contradiction with another thing I said. You're slick. But, you do not persuade.”
DeleteLogic- it’s a bitch.
Look Mike, I’m being nice here by throwing you a bone. You need some justification for why crime has been falling over the last years while tens of millions (not tens of thousands as you said, but congratulations, your estimate was only three orders of magnitude off) of guns have been put into circulation. “Criminal Gun Market Saturation” because guns are so plentiful in this country is a good fallback for you.
Here is an analogy for you. Say a farmer is growing crops along a river. He siphons off 0.1% of the water from the river to irrigate his crops. After years of drought, the flow of the river has been cut in half. So now the farmer siphons off 0.2% of the river- still providing him with all the water he needs. This is roughly the percentages we are talking about when you talk about “gun flow” being diverted to the criminal world. Criminals use such a small percentage that it is pretty daunting to think you can stop the flow.
"A frustrated Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy said the laws are so toothless that gang members are more worried about being beaten up by their gangs for losing a gun than going before a judge after being caught with one.
ReplyDeleteIn the first quarter, police arrested 688 people for illegal firearms. By April 1, 60 percent of those people were already back on the street, McCarthy said."
We discussed poor Mr. McCarthy's plight just last week I believe.
"Thousands of cases involving weapons violations were thrown out in Chicago's Cook County criminal courts between 2006 and 2013, according to the Chicago Reporter.
More felony cases involving guns were thrown out than any other kind of case, the Chicago Reporter said.
According to the Chicago Reporter, the chief of the state’s attorney’s office’s criminal prosecutions bureau said most of the dismissed cases "were based on a judge's decision to suppress evidence because a gun was intercepted in a way that violates the Fourth Amendment. Under that scenario, the prosecutor’s office would have no choice but to throw out the charge."
http://news.yahoo.com/dozens-shootings-1-weekend-look-chicagos-gun-problem-210510145--abc-news-topstories.html;_ylt=AwrC0wwu4pxVZHYAbCqamolQ;_ylu=X3oDMTBybGY3bmpvBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMyBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzcg--
But at the end of the day, it just boils down to this,
"Meanwhile, the city has suffered legal losses in its efforts to keep guns out of the hands of residents and seen its attempts to stiffen gun laws thwarted by state lawmakers."
Chicago officials don't want anyone law abiding citizens or not to possess firearms. I'm assuming the legal loss is the McDonald Decision from SCOTUS.
The crimes go on without any ideas, or help from the pro gun crowd. They could care less how many innocent people die as long as no one touches their precious guns.
DeleteIn the case of Chicago, they seem to automatically fall back on needing more gun laws. The problem is that even before their complete ban of handguns was found to be unconstitutional they had the astronomical violent crime numbers. Perhaps Chief McCarthy needs to look at what happened in Baltimore and understand that he can be replaced.
DeleteYou never offer anything to stop the 30,000 gun shot deaths per year. You only complain about infringements on your right to own a gun. It's so easy to get a gun in America, your complaints are laughable.
DeleteSo what happened to your precious theory that the more people with guns, the less crime.
Delete"You never offer anything to stop the 30,000 gun shot deaths per year. You only complain about infringements on your right to own a gun."
DeleteAnon, have you noticed that when you run out what passes for your thoughtful debate points you fall back on the 30,000 people dying of gunshot mantra?
I've committed no crimes with any of my firearms, nor killed or injured anyone. And I've had no problems acquiring any of my firearms in spite of living in a very liberal state because I'm also politically active and never fail to share my position on gun rights with my elected representatives.
In fact, just this last legislative session there were several bills signed into law by a liberal Democratic Governor that expanded gun rights. Including allowing citizens to possess suppressors.
And last session in this liberal state bills calling for universal background checks and a ban on assault weapons failed.
And our homicide and violent crime rates are quite low.
"So what happened to your precious theory that the more people with guns, the less crime."
DeleteWell Anon, lets look at this data from the FBI which shows national crime rates nationwide,
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/tables/1tabledatadecoverviewpdf/table_1_crime_in_the_united_states_by_volume_and_rate_per_100000_inhabitants_1994-2013.xls
If you look at the data, you'll see that during the time that the numbers of guns in the hands of citizens increased, pretty much every class of crime showed a steady drop in its crime rate.
As for what's causing these reported local increases in violent crime, its hard to say. Dare I say it? Other factors?
Maybe its the police not being able to deal with gang violence. Or perhaps its the very recent violent civil unrest caused by lack of faith in local law enforcement.
You should try reading the article, they actually bring up some good possibilities. Or you can try some of the explanations given when an increase in crime occurs in places with strict gun laws such as DC or Baltimore.
Yes, I've noticed that, because I think 30,000 gun shot deaths a year is a problem (a problem that can be stopped) gun loons like you don't.
DeleteIf our gun problem was ONLY about you, we wouldn't have a gun problem, and it's selfish in the extreme to claim because you cause no problems with your gun this country has no gu8n problems.
I'll remember that the next time you claim the FBI (and other reputable organizations) stats are false just because their conclusions don't meet your theories. Pick and choose the numbers you claim are correct. Great gun loon thinking.
How come it's always OTHER factors, which you can't explain?
"I'll remember that the next time you claim the FBI (and other reputable organizations) stats are false just because their conclusions don't meet your theories. Pick and choose the numbers you claim are correct. "
DeleteAnon, I can't recall a time when I suggested that data from the FBI was false. I did see you threw in the "other reputable organizations" exception though. What organizations do you consider reputable?
As for my comment regarding other factors, that was a tongue in cheek jab at Mike, who likes to use the term to explain the lack of effectiveness of strict gun laws in some areas.
You think 30,000 dead by gun shot is tongue and cheek, you think it's funny. Typical kill happy gun loon. You can't remember, typical for a government military man. HA HA HA
DeleteSo aren't you willing to share an example of what you consider to be "other reputable organizations" Anon? Can you possibly cite an instance where I claimed that data from say the FBI or the CDC was false?
DeleteThe answer to both your questions are in Mike's archives, as said by you.
Delete
Delete"The answer to both your questions are in Mike's archives, as said by you."
Sorry Anon, if you make a claim in a discussion, then it's on you to provide sources. Otherwise it becomes an unsupported statement, namely an opinion. Which is actually what my first question was, asking you what you considered to be a reputable organization.
Sorry you can't defend your own words, but that's typical for you. You make claims all the time you never back up, but the rules are different for others. Figures for a hypocrite gun loon who refuses to even defend his own words.
DeleteA frustrated Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy said the laws are so toothless that gang members are more worried about being beaten up by their gangs for losing a gun than going before a judge after being caught with one.
ReplyDeleteSounds as if McCarthy wants the police to have the right to beat up gang members. Oh, wait a second--this is Chicago, where cops beat up anyone they want to.
Crucify me now, but the problem ain't guns, it is blacks.
ReplyDeleteorlin sellers
Also, there are situations such as this:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/01/23/david-gregory-arrest-affidavit-nbc-knew-he-would-violate-dc-gun-law
This is just a famous instance of the authorities not bothering to enforce existing gun crimes. Add on top of this situations such as the incompetence/negligence of Detroit police taking several hours to respond to calls, and we have a real enforcement problems. Why first enforce existing laws and see what the results are in the cities, before enacting new ones?
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/01/23/david-gregory-arrest-affidavit-nbc-knew-he-would-violate-dc-gun-law
"Houston, St. Louis, New Orleans and Baltimore have all seen significant spikes in the number of homicides this year."
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of violence in Baltimore.
"City officials have suspended operations of the Safe Streets anti-violence program in East Baltimore after police officers found seven guns and drugs stashed inside the Monument Street office..
Police said a robbery investigation led them to the office, and two employees were among those arrested. The suspension sidelines the program's work in East Baltimore at a time when gun violence has been spiking."
"Soon after, an officer spotted the vehicle parked in the 2300 block of E. Monument and saw men dart inside the Safe Streets office. When officers eventually raided the office, they found guns, heroin, cocaine, and other items used in the manufacturing and sale of drugs, including cutting agents and scales, police said."
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/baltimore-city/bs-md-ci-safe-streets-raid-20150714-story.html#page=1
How could there possibly be a spike in gun violence, when the gun loons tell us, the more guns, the less crime. Aren't there enough guns in this town to prove the gun loon theory?
ReplyDelete