Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Originally Posted by Floorist My community is overall very poor. What jobs are here are mostly minimum wage, but we have very little violence. One murder in the last seven years, for example. There is a drug problem, like everywhere these days. There is a high rate of gun ownership. Open and conceal carry are both legal. The only thing I see is that the population is mostly white. 20 miles from here is a very similar community, mostly black that also has little violence and high gun ownership. And a drug problem. Both cities are alike in most ways except the color of the residents. Don't know why, but I just thought that it was interesting.
Reading between the lines, both communities are similar in gun ownership, drug use, and crime despite the difference in race. IOW, race makes no difference in the level of crime in Floorist's anecdote. Nor does gun ownership. Nor does drug use.
But I'd suspect neither community has a problem with gang activity.
"Race makes no difference in the level of crime in Floorist's anecdote?"
Read again, in particular what I have in bold above, this comment does not suggest the problem and/or difference is black people?
Reading all of this, no one has come to any ideas on how to actually reduce violence, period. Not gun violence, but violence period.
Actually, as often cited by those most wanting to suggest the proliferation of guns in America is not the cause of increased gun violence, violence has declined over the past decades, which begs the question whether gun control measures have helped, higher incarceration rates, more law enforcement...?
Fact is, the more you research as to cause/effect, the more it seems clear that no one can make any real sound determinations either way with any real level of confidence, as fairly well explained here:
Instead of a single, dominant cause, our research points to a vast web of factors, often complex, often interacting, and some unexpected. Of the theories we examined, we found the following factors had some effect on bringing down crime: a growth in income (5 to 10 percent), changes in alcohol consumption (5 to 10 percent), the aging population (0 to 5 percent), and decreased unemployment (0 to 3 percent). Policing also played a role, with increased numbers of police in the 1990s reducing crime (0 to 10 percent) and the introduction of CompStat having an even larger effect (5 to 15 percent).
But none is solely, or even largely, responsible for the crime drop. Unfortunately, we could not fully test a few theories, as the data did not exist at the detailed level we needed for our analysis. For those, we analyzed past research, finding that inflation and consumer confidence (individuals’ belief about the strength of the economy) probably had some effect on crime. The legalization of abortion and unleading of gasoline may also have played some role.
In aggregate, the fourteen factors we identified can explain some of the drop in crime in the 1990s. But even adding all of them together fails to explain the majority of the decrease.
Thank you. Having to constantly explain the obvious while disregarding the straw man arguments gets old and tiring, so it's always nice when someone steps in with some straight-forward facts to help get to the actual cause/effect truths of these matters.
One cannot compare apples to oranges. You can't compare inner city Detroit to rural Michigan. There are even some rural areas in Michigan with large Black populations. Do they share the same levels of violent crime as the inner cities of Detroit, Flint, and Saginaw?
Generally, rural areas have less violent crime that urban areas. But even this can vary. Iowa, Minnesota, Maine, with high White populations and a low murder rate. West Virginia tends to be higher than those states. Why that is the case is something needing to be studied.
I can go further. Virginia has a higher percentage of African-Americans than Missouri or Michigan. However, MO and MI have higher murder rates than VA. Actually, Virginia's murder rate is identical to West Virginia, a state that is more than 90% White. Richmond,VA;St,Louis,MO. Both are around 50 percent Black. Richmond's murder rate has been dropping and it is a city on the rise. St. Louis has a murder rate 2.5 higher than Richmond, and getting worse.
Actually, as often cited by those most wanting to suggest the proliferation of guns in America is not the cause of increased gun violence, violence has declined over the past decades, which begs the question whether gun control measures have helped, higher incarceration rates, more law enforcement...?
Fact is, the more you research as to cause/effect, the more it seems clear that no one can make any real sound determinations either way with any real level of confidence, as fairly well explained here:
Instead of a single, dominant cause, our research points to a vast web of factors, often complex, often interacting, and some unexpected. Of the theories we examined, we found the following factors had some effect on bringing down crime: a growth in income (5 to 10 percent), changes in alcohol consumption (5 to 10 percent), the aging population (0 to 5 percent), and decreased unemployment (0 to 3 percent). Policing also played a role, with increased numbers of police in the 1990s reducing crime (0 to 10 percent) and the introduction of CompStat having an even larger effect (5 to 15 percent).
But none is solely, or even largely, responsible for the crime drop. Unfortunately, we could not fully test a few theories, as the data did not exist at the detailed level we needed for our analysis. For those, we analyzed past research, finding that inflation and consumer confidence (individuals’ belief about the strength of the economy) probably had some effect on crime. The legalization of abortion and unleading of gasoline may also have played some role.
In aggregate, the fourteen factors we identified can explain some of the drop in crime in the 1990s. But even adding all of them together fails to explain the majority of the decrease.
I have another theory. Suburbanization. It seems as more Blacks live in the suburbs, the murder rate drops. I base this on the events after WWII. As more White families went out into the suburbs, the nation's murder rate started dropping. As more Blacks have moved into the suburbs, the Black murder rates have dropped in many places.
Consider this. During the 80s and 90s, the Black population started increasing in Minnesota, specifically Mpls and St. Paul. The murder rate went up to where Minneapolis was nicknamed "Murderapolis". With decent hardworking people looking for a safe place to live, the criminals came along too. Someone with the Mpls PD mentioned that most Blacks don't cause problems, but 75% of murder victims/perps were Black, despite Blacks being 13% of the city's population. 20 or so years later, Minneapolis has gotten much better in regards to its murder rate. Blacks are now 18% of the population in Minneapolis and the murder rate is lower. Blacks also live in other parts of the TC metro and other cities in Minnesota. The Black murder rate and Black incarceration rate has dropped significantly. Wisconsin, next door, has one of the highest Black murder rates and Black incarceration rates in the USA. 7 out of 10 Blacks in Wisconsin live in Milwaukee, and often the worst parts.
You wrote the following, "I had posted that I live in an area of high gun ownership but almost no gun crimes....which should not be possible according to anti-gunners."
Again, I'm not an "anti-gunner," but you really consider your above statement as something other than a straw man argument, reasonable or fair?
Again, there are no absolute correlations either way as I've tried to make clear with all my comments, not just those directed to you. There are always "exceptions to the rule," but this does not mean there are not some rules and/or correlations that tend to hold most true.
Even if I had more time to explain more of the obvious, hopefully to keep the discussion more "honest" and "sensible," I would rather focus on the actual facts of these matters, not what you think "anti gunners" believe.
Either way, I don't have more time to waste this morning. Maybe tomorrow morning will be a more productive one...
"Race makes no difference in the level of crime in Floorist's anecdote?"
Read again, in particular what I have in bold above, this comment does not suggest the problem and/or difference is black people?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floorist My community is overall very poor. What jobs are here are mostly minimum wage, but we have very little violence. One murder in the last seven years, for example. There is a drug problem, like everywhere these days. There is a high rate of gun ownership. Open and conceal carry are both legal. The only thing I see is that the population is mostly white. 20 miles from here is a very similar community, mostly black that also has little violence and high gun ownership. And a drug problem. Both cities are alike in most ways except the color of the residents. Don't know why, but I just thought that it was interesting.
What part of "alike" in "Both cities are alike in most ways except the color of the residents" are you having difficulty understanding?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
