Chicken Little Media Hype or a Real Concern

[Werewolf]

Communities Grapple with Rise in Violence

A perfect storm
Crowders was one of more than a dozen murders in Washington in early July. Police blotters in Seattle, Indianapolis, Minneapolis and other cities paint similarly violent pictures: After a decade of decline, violent crime is on the rise across the U.S. Assault and rape rose 2.5 percent between 2004 and 2005, according to the FBIs latest report of national crime trends. Murder and robbery are up nearly 5 percent  the sharpest increase since 1991. Medium-sized cities of between 50,000 and 500,000 have been the bloodiest.

After reading the article I began to wonder whether this is just media sensationalizing a normal peak in the peak and valley of crime stats or if it is something to really be concerned about. The article also got me wondering whether or not the big decrease in violent crime in the 90's was actually due to the rise of CCW like we gun folk like to claim (look at the map in the article - most of the cities noted are in CCW shall issue states) or if it wasn't due more to an increase in economic well being resulting from the boom economy of that period.

The one thing noted in the article that didn't surprise me is that most of the increases in violence are minorities killing each other. The article attributes this - partially - to the big push in the early 90's to put bad guys in the joint and that now they're all getting out.

So - media hype, a real concern or a who cares?

[Perd Hapley]

If you want to know about CCW and crime stats, John Lott's More Guns, Less Crime is one place to start.  He points out that arrest rates, conviction rates, economic concerns and other factors can affect crime rates.  

Regarding the current crime boom; it was only a matter of time before George Bush's reign of hatred, greed, poverty and war-mongering drove crime and violence to new levels.    Oh, I forgot about racism.

[Bogie]

I suspect that many gangstas have figured out that larger cities are actually a little less hospitable for a startup enterprise... Established criminal networks, and while the public face of the po-po tends to be kinder and gentler, the street face is decidedly different...

Was in the Columbia, MO emergency room with the girlfriend on Saturday afternoon/early evening... The guy next to us was 17, and basically in for a followup on a gunshot wound to the chest... Said he'd been shot in the heart, but from what I was able to gather through discreet nosine... err... eavesdropp... er... intelligence gathering, he'd been shot in the neck, and it ended up next to the heart.
 
This was one of the guys you don't see so much in The Cities anymore... Pants down around his knees... (really...) and more gangsta mannerisms than an entire suburban high school...
 
Then it gets weirder...

They decided they were gonna keep Jen, so I headed back to I-70 for a motel... Walked next door for a (very late) dinner, and as I was walking back, two identical late model black caddillacs (large type...) drove through the parking lot, windows open, with the occupants, all late teens/early 20s, actively looking for someone or something... I just kept going, but started looking for places to duck...
 
Man, that was in-your-face... I'm guessing that the smaller city cops have no idea what to do with these guys...

[AJ Dual]

As much as I want to believe "More Guns, Less Crime" and it's ilk, I can't.

However, I do think they have proven (and the CDC and others back this up) that "Guns Don't Hurt", so there's no point in restricting the rights of the law-abiding.

What ultimately affects the crime rate is four  things:

1. Demographics. In the 90's, the last of the Baby-Boom cohort aged out of the prime 15-30 year old "crime demographic". This was likely the number one factor. (The same has been said for Roe V. Wade, but in essence the argument is the same, fewer males of peak criminal age&)

2. The economy. Upswings in the economy lower crime rates.

3. Culture. Look at the crime rates in Japan, Brasil, and America for comparison. Three levels of gun ownership. Three different crime rates. No correlation. Look at inner city crime rates vs. suburban. Culture is the constant.

4. Prohibition. (Actualy a combined sub-set of the Economy and Culture categories) Alcohol Prohibition got us the 1920's and 30's. Drug Prohibition got us the 70's, 80's, and 90's. Remove the scarcity, you remove the high profit margins, remove the profit margins, you eliminate the violence over them.

[Perd Hapley]

I brought up John Lott because he doesn't simply say, "CCW lowers the crime rate."  In MGLC, he discusses the differences that can be brought about by law enforcement procedures and also the economy if I remember right.  The point being that even John Lott doesn't have a simplistic point of view on the subject.

[Standing Wolf]

After reading the article I began to wonder whether this is just media sensationalizing a normal peak in the peak and valley of crime stats or if it is something to really be concerned about.

2006 is an election year: lots of "news" about so-called "homelessness," violent crime, racism, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, all designed to benefit representatives of the Democratic (sic) party.

[Sylvilagus Aquaticus]

I look at it as a simple two-pronged solution.

1). Apprehend criminals.
2). Incarcerate them quickly for a long period of time.

see...told you it was simple.


Regards,
Rabbit.

[pawcatch]

I think this is a normal spike that is common through out the history of this nation.
This trend of an up and down homicide rate started in the early 1900s (figures before then are unreliable)and will continue.

In 1900 the U.S. homicide rate per 100,000 people was only 1.2
 
1910 4.6

1920 6.8

1930 8.8

It peaked in 1933 at 9.7

1940 6.3

1950 5.3

1960 4.7

1970 8.3

1980 10.7

1990 10

2000 5.5

[Perd Hapley]

I still like the Freakonomics theory that if you murder enough children through abortion, you can lower the incidence of other crimes.  I wonder what our crime stats would look like if abortions were counted as murders, as they ought to be.  

Despite my signature, prenatal murder is one thing I would like to see outlawed, being a progressive, civilized, liberal libertarian, in the true sense of those terms.

[Sindawe]

Hmmm...  I have to wonder, how much of this increase in crime is due to:

1. More effective reporting and record keeping of criminal activity?  There has always been some level of unreported crime occuring.  "Shoot, some drannit took off with my garden hose.  Guess I'll have to stop by Lowes this weekend and get a new one.... "

2. Immigration of various natures.  By some estimates there are some 20,000,000 illegal aliens in this county.  People who have chosen to ignore and violate the laws of the nation, making then crimminals from the get go may be more inclined to later ignore other laws of this nation.  "Hey, I dumped my used motor oil in the alley behind the neighbors house and got away with it, I could use a new garden house and he's a rich gringo who can afford a new one..."  Different cultures, different acceptance of lawlessness.  We have also been accepting increasing numbers of legal immigrants.  If they late chose to pursue crimminal activity, well thats one of the risks I'm will to take for periodic revitalization of the culture with fresh blood.  The numbers however do lead into...

3. Increased social pressure due to increased overall population, from all sources.  I recall reading and watching about a study where rats were kept in a finate space, but provided with an abundance of resources.  Populations exploded and IIRC bands of male rats would go on kill crazy rampages.

4. Increased perception and acting apon the apparent ineffectiveness of law enforcement and disinterest in the same of our "Leaders".   As crime rates oscillate over time, during the periods of increased criminal activity there is a general sense of "things are getting worse/crazier".  Some on the edge of legal behavior normally may perceive the agents of civil peace as weak and so see an opportunity to "get theirs while the gettings good".

Despite my signature, prenatal murder is one thing I would like to see outlawed, being a progressive, civilized, liberal libertarian, in the true sense of those terms.

Now THERE is a gnarly can of Zombie Mutant Worms.  K, I'll bite.  Base start of life on the same criteria as end of life.  Brain activity.  If there is none, its just tissue.  If there is activity, its murder most foul since those slain are that their weakest and most defenseless.

[Werewolf]

Despite my signature, prenatal murder is one thing I would like to see outlawed, being a progressive, civilized, liberal libertarian, in the true sense of those terms.

Now THERE is a gnarly can of Zombie Mutant Worms.  K, I'll bite.  Base start of life on the same criteria as end of life.  Brain activity.  If there is none, its just tissue.  If there is activity, its murder most foul since those slain are that their weakest and most defenseless.

That is the most sensible answer to the question of when life begins question I have ever heard.

Too bad sensible usually doesn't translate into law.

[Bogie]

Actually, I've found that most illegal immigrants, other than the fact that they're in the country illegally, are fairly law abiding... Yeah, the young'uns tend to get a little wild, but face it - the folks are here to WORK. Capitalism at its finest...
 
What I've got a problem with are our inner cities, where we have a culture that has grown up around avoiding work.

[Perd Hapley]

 Base start of life on the same criteria as end of life.  Brain activity.  If there is none, its just tissue.  If there is activity, its murder most foul since those slain are that their weakest and most defenseless.

You are claiming that this growing organism is not alive until it develops a brain?  That is very odd, indeed.  Bacteria are alive without brains, no?

Can't resist; Paris Hilton is alive, too.

[Sindawe]

You are claiming that this growing organism is not alive until it develops a brain?  That is very odd, indeed.  Bacteria are alive without brains, no?

To clarify, define the begining of HUMAN life as the commencement of brain activity.  Yes, bacteria are alive but have no brain.

Of course, such is not going to please ANYBODY.

The fetus is capable of movement from a very early age. At 7 weeks it can move its head in response to a stimulus around the mouth. At ten weeks, the palms will flex or toes curl if touched.

Source: http://www.parliament.uk/post/pn094.pdf#search=%22start%20of%20fetal%20brain%20activity%22  from a quick search

[BozemanMT]

Purely noise
more justification to increase our ever increasing police state, without really affecting the rates of crime.
Budgets for cops/fbi's/feds/states have utterly exploded in the last 10 to 20 years
have the criminal statistics changed by any meaningful amount?
not that cant' be explained by normal statistics (already mentioned, aging, economy, etc)
In fact, i would argue in many areas, esp. inner cities we are less safe than we were 20 years ago.

but we are more controlled.

In most business's no results gets you less money.
In government, no results gets you more money

What's wrong here?

[Perd Hapley]

Sindawe,

Is it normal, in biology, to say that a canine embryo is not a dog until its brain begins to function?  What are dogs considered to be at this point in their development?  Why would you say that an embryo is not human at that point?  What form of life is it?  It's not a fish; it's not an elephant; it's not a fly.  It's human - that's a simple fact.  What is the purpose of denying it?  To come from the other side, is the body in the casket not human?  Of course it is - a dead human.  But the pre-cognitive embryo is not dead, it is a living human.  This is a cut-and-dried matter.  Political and social pressures are the only reason to think otherwise.

[Sindawe]

Why would you say that an embryo is not human at that point?

Because to me what make a human is not the shape of the physical body or the degree of physical development, but the mind that resides within that body.  The mind is what counts, the rest is just a vessel that holds the mind for awhile.  Without that mind, whats left is just meat.  Maybe still living in the biological sense, but there ain't no body home.  Some can and have argued that its the soul that makes us human, but as yet we cannot quantify the soul.  So I'm proposing that the medical standard for the beginning  of human life be the same as the standard for the end of human life, the presence or absence of brain activity.  Setting such would be a compromise, and not really please anybody.  Those who are in the camp of "Life begins at conception" will not be happy since there would be a window between fertilization of the ova and the start of brain activity where termination of the pregnancy can take place, and those in the camp of "Its a womans right to control her body" will not be happy since the window of termination is rather short, perhaps less than seven weeks post fertilization.

[Monkeyleg]

As usual, AJ and others have hit the target.

Throughout the 1990's, when members of both political parties were taking credit for the decline in violent crime, credible sociologists were predicting what we are now experiencing: a wave of new violent crime.

In fact, I recall one sociologist predicting that the next wave of criminals would be called what he termed, "super-predators:" Young punks that would go well beyond what was the previous level of violent crime, and engage in acts of violence reminiscent of the movie, "A Clockwork Orange."

Well, we're at that point here in Milwaukee. Some of the attacks have been so brutal and so absolutely senseless that even the veteran anti-gun politico's don't have an answer.

I do: when some 14 year-old picks up a 2" x 4" and helps the rest of the mob beat a man to death, the judge shouldn't decide that the kid had a rough childhood, or that his mother wasn't around as much as she should have been.

He's 14, he's been involved in a murder.

Let him talk to the parole board when he's, oh, 34 or so.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

There are varying degrees of brain activity.  The highest levels of brain function, such as sensory perception and self-awareness, don't begin until well after birth.  If you set your standard one way, you might be able to claim a 6 week old embrio is a living human and deserves legal protections.  Set your stndard somewhere else and a 6 month old infant might not be a person yet, and could be legally murdered (killed?  aborted?  terminated?  what to you call the death of something that isn't legally alive?)

The whole brain activity thing is a good idea, but it still comes down to an arbitrary decision at some point.  It's probably less arbitrary than our current standard, but it's still arbitrary.

The way I figure it, nobody truly knows when life begins.  It's gotta come down to one arbitrary decision or another.  Since we don't know we're right, shouldn't we err on the side of life?  I mean, it's no real problem to wrongly give unneeded or "undeserved" legal protections to something that isn't alive.  But it's a BIG problem if we screw up and deny legal protections to a living person, knowing there's a good chance the person could be legally murdered as a result of our error.

And besides, abortion is just plain despicable.  How can anyone justify killing a baby simply to avoid the consequences of their own immature and irresponsible behavior?

Anyway, sorry for the rant.  It's late and I'm tired.

[Perd Hapley]

Sindawe,

I appreciate that you are trying to find a reasonable basis on which to determine the beginning of life, but you haven't found it.  You say we cannot quantify the soul, but we cannot quantify the mind, either.  And you treat the beginning of life as if it were death in reverse.  The cessation of brain function may be a good place to mark death, but only because the brain keeps the body functioning.  At life's beginning, things don't work that way.  Indeed, how would a brain ever grow, if there was no life to grow it?  And what makes you think there is a mind in a newly-functioning brain stem?  What is enough brain activity to warrant legal protection for this life form?  

I guess what you mean to say is that "human life" or "personhood" begins with brain function.  This is an interesting metaphysical theory, but let's base our law on the observable and plain.  It seems apparent, your theory aside, that a fertilized egg is a new organism, and a human one at that.  The caterpillar and the moth are the same species, after all, just at different stages of development.  Like it or not, fertilization is the only bright line we can look to, and there is simply no reason to look elsewhere.  

You are arguing for a new "medical definition"?  I can't imagine this being taken seriously by physicians, but let me know if you have run it by any and what they have said.  Why base a "medical definition" on this metaphysical talk of mind, rather than on the hard facts of science?  

Science defines life by six characteristics:

Organization  
Metabolism
Growth  
Adaptation
Response to stimuli
Reproduction

Notice that an organism need not do all of those things at all times to be considered alive.  And the various methods of determing species make no reference to an organism's level of development.

[Monkeyleg]

HTG: I'm very loath to wade into the abortion debate, as it seems to run on endlessly, until a moderator shuts the thread down.

I'm also aware that many people on APS, THR and TFL don't like Rush Limbaugh.

All of that is beside the point.

I only hear Rush's program for a few minutes at best every week. He's very entertaining, which I hope people realize is what he does for a living.

However, on the topic of abortion, one of his callers made the best point that I've ever heard. A self-described atheist, the caller said that, logically, life begins at the point of conception. Any other point of life (one month, four months, six months etc), he said, was entirely arbitrary.

I thought that was a brilliant point.

And, now, to move on to other points before the abortion debate gets this thread locked down: gun owners have been given a respite in the battles for a few reasons. One reason is that the Democrats realized that the 1994 AW ban cost them control of the congress. Another is that we've seen declining violent crime rates at a time when gun ownership and NRA membership has climbed. Yet another is the 9/11 attacks coupled with the seizures of guns from the law-abiding during Katrina.

IOW, the American public has tired of gun-control arguments.

Well, what to bring them back around?

How about a higher rate of violent crime?

As I mentioned in an earlier post, sociologists predicted a new crime wave by 2004 or 2006. Some were even more exact in their timing.

It will do us no good to try to convince the soccer mommies that a renewal of the 1994 AW ban won't help.

It won't do us any good to try to convince urbanites that their salvation lies not with new laws, but with their own means of self-protection.

Good luck getting those two groups to start to think.

Instead, our future depends upon electing legislators who will stand behind us, and tell the soccer mommies and the metrosexuals the message they want to hear.

IOW, we win when we win at the ballot box--whether it's local, state, or federal.

If you want to win and keep your gun rights, go out and work. The other side doesn't. That's our advantage. When it comes to campaign funds, it's our only advantage.

[Perd Hapley]

The way I figure it, nobody truly knows when life begins.  It's gotta come down to one arbitrary decision or another.  Since we don't know we're right, shouldn't we err on the side of life?  I mean, it's no real problem to wrongly give unneeded or "undeserved" legal protections to something that isn't alive.  But it's a BIG problem if we screw up and deny legal protections to a living person, knowing there's a good chance the person could be legally murdered as a result of our error.

But we do know when life begins.  We knew perfectly well, until Roe v. Wade seemed to decide that since Jews and Christians and Muslims and atheists couldn't all agree, that we just don't know.  There's nothing arbitrary about fertilization.  But you are correct we should err on the side of life.  We can do it for suspected murderers, why not for the innocent?

How can anyone justify killing a baby simply to avoid the consequences of their own immature and irresponsible behavior?

Anyway, sorry for the rant.  It's late and I'm tired.

I'm hoping it's your exhaustion getting to you on this one - some women are pregnant by force.  Of course, this does not justify murdering a child.

[Perd Hapley]

However, on the topic of abortion, one of his callers made the best point that I've ever heard. A self-described atheist, the caller said that, logically, life begins at the point of conception. Any other point of life (one month, four months, six months etc), he said, was entirely arbitrary.

I thought that was a brilliant point.

No, just common sense.  Arguments for abortion dismiss the personhood of the pre-born along four lines of attack, all of them arbitrary.

Development - as if the six-year-old is less human than the eighteen-year-old

Size - so I am a person, but a midget may not be

Location - Inside the mother's body?  Not a person.  Outside?  Personhood.  Similarly, some argue that the new organism isn't alive until it is implanted.

Parentage - If your father is a rapist or a close relative of Mommy's, you are not a person.

[Bogie]

Life begins when the little bastard can hold an intelligent conversation.
 
You know, let's quit the abortion crap RIGHT NOW. Neither side is gonna convince the other. So can it.
 
Now, do we have a growing crime wave?
 
I think that what we have are more "supernice" people (easy victims) and more "superbad" people (predators). But those are groups at the ends of the bell curve - I think that the lower end (bad) is tipping upward slightly, while the upper end (nice) is swelling a bit more... Now, the folks mean well, and all that, but you can't reason with the superbad...

[Art Eatman]

I go along with Post #s 4 & 11.

Anecdote:  From an article in the LA Times, outstanding felony warrants are 90% for illegal aliens.  Then, consider the reports of the percentage of gang-bangers who are either illegals or the offspring of illegals.  Last, consider the MS-13 group, and its spread across the US.

So, yeah, there's a growing problem.

And, yeah, there's a lot of media hype.

it is extremely rare that there is ever one single cause for social problems.

Art