US Homicide Rate at a 51 Year Low

[WorldofWarcraft]

so....back in the 1920's and teens, before welfare and modern liberalism....cities were safe places? theyre the safer places in other countries?

I dunno. I don't want to say something I know very little about, especially when going back that far into history. I definitely think cities back then were more dangerous than the rural areas, though. Then again, the cowboy west wasn't all that safe either.

 

[JonnyRingo84]

I dunno. I don't want to say something I know very little about, especially when going back that far into history. I definitely think cities back then were more dangerous than the rural areas, though. Then again, the cowboy west wasn't all that safe either.

gangs of new york bruh....go watch it.

al capone and baby face nelson etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc were they liberals of color? lol - all im saying is that no political ideology or race has a monopoly on violence.

there is some truth, i believe, in what youre saying too, though. i dont think it has shit to do with skin color or any innate differences among the races, but i do think that certain cultures are often correlated with certain races, and not all cultures are equal. but that isnt the whole story either, as al capone should show us. really, the gilded age in the US was way more dangerous than today, and they were ULTRA market right wingers for the most part, and white of skin.

 

[Jack V Savage]

rip is implying that cities in the US are violent because of a liberal mindset. but.....arent cities where more crime takes place regardless of who lives there? more people in close proximity = more crime no?

Rates are what you want to look at (and FYI, crime has been falling much faster in bigger cities so the gap isn't really that big now). But the relationship is reversed. There's more need for and benefit from rational governance in cities, and if you're exposed to more people, you're going to be less freaked out by difference.

 

[IGIT]

I GOT you are being purposefully selective. Nationwide, where you focused just a couple of posts ago show Dem cities overwhelming responsible for most of the murders. The ten most dangerous cities are all Democrat.

hello Stoic,

cities have always had a higher incidence of crime than rural areas, and this has been the case for hundreds of years in the United States.

the point i made remains the same, Stoic.

the most dangerous states, where the crime violent crime rate is the highest, are predominantly red states.

- IGIT

 

[Jack V Savage]

hello Stoic,

cities have always had a higher incidence of crime than rural areas, and this has been the case for hundreds of years in the United States.

I think people are assuming some kind of law of nature here, and I don't think it's quite right.

Check this:

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-dr...-barns-why-rural-crime-skyrocketed-late-1800s

 

[IGIT]

First thing, this thread is about homicides, not crime rate.

Second, these homicides are concentrated in cities, which are liberal areas.

Thirdly, republican mayor of a big city is typically a liberal republican almost always serving a large liberal population.

good morning ripskater,

by murder rate, by state, per capita, here are the rankings;

Louisiana

Mississippi

Maryland

Missouri

South Caroina

Alaska

Alabama

Delaware

Nevada

Tennessee

those are your top ten, my friend. mostly red states. mostly states with the GOP in control of the state legislature. mostly states with a GOP Governor.

- IGIT

 

[sub_thug]

Sure, but what, specifically, are you referring to?

I think that's kind of right, but there is a little difference. It comes down to trust in the police, specifically. If the police are assholes to you or actively making things worse, you gotta deal with shit on your own.

It's not a defined group.

The research that you referenced that countered the points made by Levitt in Freakonomics.

That cuts a lot of different ways. If you think that the police aren't going to be making you or your community safe, then yes, you will be incentivized to handle situations on your own outside of the rule of law. We see this manifest itself in other ways. For example, I have a concealed carry permit. Given that the average police response time is measured to take at least several minutes (varying on where you live), and given that the average violent crime takes significantly less time to complete than said response time, I have the incentive to want to do my own protection. Couple that with the fact that over my career, I have been in a fair amount of gunfights, so I have a very clear understanding of how much confusion and chaos is ALWAYS present in situations involving gunfire, so I have no reason to believe that the police will be an effective force to stopping a violent crime in many situations (things like differentiating the good guys from the bad guys while trying to maintain a defensive posture is shockingly difficult, and there are additional factors that negatively impact police effectiveness in these scenarios). As such, I believe that I have a duty to defend myself and others in a violent scenario. That doesn't mean that my beliefs express themselves in an anarchic or lawless way. I can function in civil society in a way that doesn't seem to manifest itself in "the hood." So causation does not justify an equivalency in the different kinds of results. There is some accountability that needs to take place. This is an important point to understand, and it seems to be lost in a lot of these narratives where individuals are excused because "they were victims of circumstance."

I understand that it is a collective movement that is not specifically defined in terms of leadership, goals, or whatever, but that is not ultimately anyone else's problem. When cells agree to wrap themselves in the same brand as others, then there is an associative property that takes place. When one cell speaks or acts on behalf of the group, and the rest of the group does nothing to refute it, then that claim or action becomes part of the policy of that group. Their lack of central leadership is an organization failure on their part, not an excuse that allows them to push anything that might be damaging to their brand/message under the rug. If they want to have a message, then it needs to be clear and organized. Otherwise, this confederacy of activists is ultimately doomed to lose a battle of public relations.

 

[mon]

im not sure if i buy this explanation, but ive heard it claimed before, and im sure the wr will love it:

ive heard it claimed that the violent crime rate in the US dropped drastically, just about 20 years after roe v. wade. legal abortion means fewer unwanted and F'ed up babies in the world, who wont grow up to be troubled adults.



violence sells in cable news. "look at this guy 5 states away who shot his little kid." you wouldnt see shit like this reported in 1970 on the nightly news, unless it was local news.

demagogue politicians. they point out every bad thing that they can and try to pin it to their opposition.

Freakanomics was the book you're drawing from.about abortion.

 

[ripskater]

good morning ripskater,

by murder rate, by state, per capita, here are the rankings;

Louisiana

Mississippi

Maryland

Missouri

South Caroina

Alaska

Alabama

Delaware

Nevada

Tennessee

those are your top ten, my friend. mostly red states. mostly states with the GOP in control of the state legislature. mostly states with a GOP Governor.

- IGIT

And again, I will say that the homicides will be concentrated in the large liberal cities of these states.

Take Louisiana, most of the homicides are gonna come from New Orleans. One of the most liberal cities in America.

 

[Shidlord]

Surprisingly, though, most Americans are unaware of this fact:



https://mises.org/blog/fbi-us-homicide-rate-51-year-low

So, two questions:

1) Why have murder rates fallen so drastically in America?
2) Why is the public generally unaware of this trend?

(For the record, I know that a lot has been written and speculated about the first question. I am interested to see what people in here think, though.)

BUUTTTT THIS CANT BE TRUE BECAUSE WE HAVE MORE HISPANICS, MUSLIMS AND NEGROS..... HERP DERP!

 

[IGIT]

I think people are assuming some kind of law of nature here, and I don't think it's quite right.

Check this:

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-dr...-barns-why-rural-crime-skyrocketed-late-1800s

'morning Jack,

you're up on the distribution of and usage of lead paint - i remember this point came up years and years ago in a discussion you and i had on learning disabilities in Camden, NJ.

interesting.

- IGIT

 

[IGIT]

And again, I will say that the homicides will be concentrated in the large liberal cities of these states.

Take Louisiana, most of the homicides are gonna come from New Orleans. One of the most liberal cities in America.

hi ripskater,

and i will say again, these cities are under the administration of conservative governors. conservative state legislators, who write conservative policy into law.

almost all big cities have mayors from the Democratic Party, Ripskater - it doesn't matter whether the state itself is liberal or conservative.

the mayor of Salt Lake City? a Democrat. the mayor of Fargo? a Democrat. i hope you're giving liberals credit for having very low murder rates per capita in those cities, my friend.

blue states, in general, have a far lesser incident of murder per capita.

the most dangerous states in the country are generally red states.

my point stands.

- IGIT

 

[Possum Jenkins]

I dunno. I don't want to say something I know very little about, especially when going back that far into history. I definitely think cities back then were more dangerous than the rural areas, though. Then again, the cowboy west wasn't all that safe either.

Saying something you don't know shit about is exactly what you're doing. As per the usual.

Fact is, late 19th-early 20th century New York, Chicago and other big cities were absolutely dangerous, crime-ridden... and almost completely white.

In the late 20th and early 21st century, urban areas where there's poverty are STILL where crime is concentrated. Except that now they are almost all black and brown. Hence the hysteria.

 

[ripskater]

- it doesn't matter whether the state itself is liberal of conservative.

I agree.
I never claimed that red or blue states mattered in terms of homicides. You're bringing that up.

My point is that most of your homicides will be in the large liberal cities. Like Louisiana on your list, liberal New Orleans is gonna be the reason that state has a high homicide rate. It's just a bad place.

 

[IGIT]

I agree.
I never claimed that red or blue states mattered in terms of homicides. You're bringing that up.

My point is that most of your homicides will be in the large liberal cities. Like Louisiana on your list, liberal New Orleans is gonna be the reason that state has a high homicide rate. It's just a bad place.

hi again ripskater,

and my point is that basically all the major cities in the United States lean towards the blue team, lol.

the interesting thing is, a city is not a state; it exists within a state. a city is largely impacted by the social policies dictated by the state's legislature and governor.

by that metric, i find it curious that the states with the highest murder per capita are mostly red states.

- IGIT

 

[WorldofWarcraft]

Saying something you don't know shit about is exactly what you're doing. As per the usual.

Fact is, late 19th-early 20th century New York, Chicago and other big cities were absolutely dangerous, crime-ridden... and almost completely white.

In the late 20th and early 21st century, urban areas where there's poverty are STILL where crime is concentrated. Except that now they are almost all black and brown. Hence the hysteria.

you're ignoring the non-white criminality of the time. They were just as bad, if not more, than white crime no matter the time period

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_organized_crime

Blacks commit much higher violent crime rates than whites no matter how far you go

http://www.columbia.edu/~rs328/Homicide.pdf

 

[Jack V Savage]

The research that you referenced that countered the points made by Levitt in Freakonomics.

Here's a summary of it. Info is in there for you to find the research (and to find other commentary on it):

http://www.economist.com/node/5246700

That cuts a lot of different ways. If you think that the police aren't going to be making you or your community safe, then yes, you will be incentivized to handle situations on your own outside of the rule of law. We see this manifest itself in other ways. For example, I have a concealed carry permit. Given that the average police response time is measured to take at least several minutes (varying on where you live), and given that the average violent crime takes significantly less time to complete than said response time, I have the incentive to want to do my own protection. Couple that with the fact that over my career, I have been in a fair amount of gunfights, so I have a very clear understanding of how much confusion and chaos is ALWAYS present in situations involving gunfire, so I have no reason to believe that the police will be an effective force to stopping a violent crime in many situations (things like differentiating the good guys from the bad guys while trying to maintain a defensive posture is shockingly difficult, and there are additional factors that negatively impact police effectiveness in these scenarios). As such, I believe that I have a duty to defend myself and others in a violent scenario. That doesn't mean that my beliefs express themselves in an anarchic or lawless way. I can function in civil society in a way that doesn't seem to manifest itself in "the hood." So causation does not justify an equivalency in the different kinds of results. There is some accountability that needs to take place. This is an important point to understand, and it seems to be lost in a lot of these narratives where individuals are excused because "they were victims of circumstance."

I think it's deeper than what you're talking about. What if the cops aren't even going to care or are going to actively fuck with you when you reach out? You have incentive not just to be armed but to have associations with others who are and to want a reputation as someone to avoid.

And what kind of accountability do you mean? I'm not advocating letting crimes go unpunished. But telling people, "don't act according to incentives" on any issue is going to work on some people but not the majority. It's not an effective substitute for good policy.

I understand that it is a collective movement that is not specifically defined in terms of leadership, goals, or whatever, but that is not ultimately anyone else's problem.

Not saying it is. But on the other hand, the fact that some nuts claim the label isn't the problem of people who are working to make positive change (like this: https://www.joincampaignzero.org/). I think it's clear that we have a lot of people who oppose the actual goals, and try to win political battles by tying the mainstream of the movement to the fringe, and a lot more people who fall for those tactics. If you regard Breitbart as a credible source, and what you know of the movement comes from them, of course you're going to oppose it. But if you're more careful to try to get an accurate picture, you'll probably support it. Either way, the demonization is extremely harmful, IMO, for the reasons I mentioned (building increased trust between communities and cops--the ultimate goal of the movement--decreases crime, and the demonization of BLM has the opposite effect).

Their lack of central leadership is an organization failure on their part, not an excuse that allows them to push anything that might be damaging to their brand/message under the rug. If they want to have a message, then it needs to be clear and organized. Otherwise, this confederacy of activists is ultimately doomed to lose a battle of public relations.

To call it an organizational failure is to accept the false premise that it is an organization rather than a grassroots movement. And there have been positive attempts by members of the movement to get a good message out (see the link above), but it gets drowned out by people who are deliberately trying to signal-boost fringe elements.

 

[ripskater]

and my point is that basically all the major cities in the United States lean towards the blue team, lol.

For sure

the interesting thing is, a city is not a state; it exists within a state. a city is largely impacted by the laws and social policies dictated by the state's legislature and governor.

A city is more impacted by it's resident voting citizens than the state it resides in. Take liberal Chicago, Illinois, there is Chicago, and then there is the rest of the state. Chicago is probably like a foreign country to people who visit it from rural Illinois.

 

[Jack V Savage]

'morning Jack,

you're up on the distribution of and usage of lead paint - i remember this point came up years and years ago in a discussion you and i had on learning disabilities in Camden, NJ.

interesting.

I think it's a really interesting issue (and Drum has been on top of it) because it ties so many disparate aspects of the crime issue together. Like I said, explaining both the rise and the fall of crime in America and the similar rises and falls (over different time periods) in other countries, as well as different rises and falls in different regions within the U.S. Even explains Mid-East violence. My natural tendency is to be skeptical when something seems too perfect, and I am kind of guarded on this one, but I think we know enough that we should be pushing lead abatement really hard. Could be one of the most important projects we've ever undertaken (we've made huge, huge progress but it's not over--though I think we're already seeing diminishing returns for America as a whole).

 

[IGIT]

hullo ripskater!

For sure

and that means of course that since there are some cities with low homicides per capita, while there are other cities with higher crimes per capita - yet as you concede, most big cities in the US are blue - you can't correlate the incidence of homicides based on party affiliation alone.

for that, you have to widen the lense that you're viewing the issue through.

you need to ask why is there a higher incidence of murder in red states? a city exists within a state....its not the other way around. its an organ residing within the greater body, ripskater. whether or not the city is liberal or not is immaterial, since all big cities are blue.

A city is more impacted by it's resident voting citizens than the state it resides in. Take liberal Chicago, Illinois, there is Chicago, and then there is the rest of the state. Chicago is probably like a foreign country to people who visit it from rural Illinois.

its not very foreign if you visit from Gary Indiana, which is just a very short drive from Chicago. Gary is far, far more lethal than Chicago.

i have to go to work, ripskater; i'll close in saying i was talking to a traffic cop today and he said that i'm correct - Red States are far more lethal than Blue States.

i have to go to work, have a very good day!

- IGIT