holy sh*t!

[AnalogPackrat]

Must be coincidence.

View attachment 109440

What a diaper load, doc. First, if you'd have read the links to the FBI UCR in my earlier post you would have noticed that rifles of any kind were responsible for 364 homicides out of a total of 10,258 firearm homicides in 2019. That's 3.5% and that percentage has never been even 5% in the history of the UCR. So, no, the failed AWB did not account for the 50% drop. Also, the homicide rate continued to fall after the AWB sunsetted in 2004.

Also of note in Table 11 are the 1476 homicides by knives and cutting implements and the 397 by blunt instruments, and the 597 by so-called "unarmed" assailants. These rough relative proportions have remained for decades.

The number of guns owned by American citizens has likely increased by 50% or more since the mid-90s. AR, AK, and similar semiautomatic rifle ownership rates have likely increased fivefold or more. So good luck with your ridiculous argument. Regurgitated pablum from the same old sources who consistently ignore (a.k.a. "curate") the actual data for the masses.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

Let's not jump to conclusions.

It's still an open question why crime rose and dropped as it did in the second half of the 20th century.

It happened around the western world and many factors were at play:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_drop
An aging population, contraceptives, legalized abortion, environmental toxins (see Lead–crime hypothesis - Wikipedia), drug proliferation, the economy, immigration, incarceration, policing and, yes, gun safety laws, may all have played a part.

As for the US, the obvious and direct contributions were tougher laws and sentencing (three-strikes laws) plus the flip from mostly "no issue" or "may issue" CCW permitting to "shall issue" and now to "Constitutional carry."

The economy varied pretty widely over the timeframe of the chart and there is no obvious correlation with recessions, unemployment, etc. Other factors are secondary at best.

Note the animated map in the "History" section of this article. When criminals can expect their victim to respond to their violence with deadly force, the equation shifts.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States

 

[crazydoc]

 

[Matador]

Because we got tough on criminals.

Lies, damn lies, and statistics. Correlation isn't causation.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

Lies, damn lies, and statistics. Correlation isn't causation.

Neither are crazy theories which try to attribute a desirable outcome to a bunch of left-wing positions on abortion, the environment, etc. Ockham's Razor. Try it sometime.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

 

[AnalogPackrat]

That's your response to data and analysis?

 

[living sounds]

Neither are crazy theories which try to attribute a desirable outcome to a bunch of left-wing positions on abortion, the environment, etc. Ockham's Razor. Try it sometime.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

Yes, correlation does not equal causation. Not just a misspelling, but also a misunderstanding of the principle, I am afraid.

And since "civility" is so often asked for, there is legitimate science behind these "crazy theories".

On the other hand, the criminological (scientific) evidence for the efficary of laws that indiscriminately punish repeat offenders isn't there. On the contrary, these (often unequally applied) laws tend to make hardened criminals out of petty ones. The scientific (and practical) consensus in criminology is to be hard on serious offenders and mild on the small timers.

I can only continue to encourage you to read actual science instead of ideologically charged online/cable news "information".

 

[JohnRoberts]

Yes, correlation does not equal causation. Not just a misspelling, but also a misunderstanding of the principle, I am afraid.

Occam's razor (also spelled Ockham's razor or Ocham's razor; Latin: novacula Occami).... don't be afraid.

And since "civility" is so often asked for, there is legitimate science behind these "crazy theories".

we are not experiencing much science or logic in modern justice practices (like catch and release of criminals).

Nearly a third of all shoplifting arrests in New York City last year involved just 327 people, the police said. Collectively, they were arrested and rearrested more than 6,000 times,

On the other hand, the criminological (scientific) evidence for the efficary of laws that indiscriminately punish repeat offenders isn't there. On the contrary, these (often unequally applied) laws tend to make hardened criminals out of petty ones. The scientific (and practical) consensus in criminology is to be hard on serious offenders and mild on the small timers.

The Hadd [i.e. the legal punishment prescribed by the Sharee'ah (Islamic law)] for a thief is to cut off the thief's hand.

not too many repeat offenders so that law was clearly effective.

Of course I do not advocate amputation but wonder if we could not craft a variant where a thief gets one hand dyed with some hard to miss color (red for being caught red handed). Merchants would not allow shoppers with dyed red hands into his store. Note: red handed refers to bloody hands after a messy murder.

I can only continue to encourage you to read actual science instead of ideologically charged online/cable news "information".

certainly sounds civil. I encourage you to follow the news regarding current events.

JR

 

[living sounds]

not too many repeat offenders so that law was clearly effective.

How would they, if they sit in privatized prisons payed for by the taxpayer for decades because getting caught with a little Cannabis 3 times?

Of course I do not advocate amputation but wonder if we could not craft a variant where a thief gets one hand dyed with some hard to miss color (red for being caught red handed). Merchants would not allow shoppers with dyed red hands into his store. Note: red handed refers to bloody hands after a messy murder.

Wouldn't it be nice if problems and solutions were simple? Reality is a lot more complicated.

Have a look at how scandinavian countries have dealt with crime and the convicted in recent decades, it is clearly working much better than the indiscriminately (and often applied discriminately against minorities) aggressive approach.

 

[crazydoc]

That's your response to data and analysis?

Brandolini's Law

The amount of energy needed to refute ******** is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it.

I don't have the energy or interest in exploring what will likely turn out to be coincidental findings, which are multi-factorial and have no proof of causation (like the assault rifle example. ) So I'll leave it at this as for the gun discussions.

 

[Matador]

Brandolini's Law

You misspelled that: it's Brewery's Law.

Of course I do not advocate amputation but wonder if we could not craft a variant where a thief gets one hand dyed with some hard to miss color (red for being caught red handed). Merchants would not allow shoppers with dyed red hands into his store. Note: red handed refers to bloody hands after a messy murder.

This is an interesting idea: perhaps we can call it a Scarlett Letter?

 

[sodderboy]

Wow, Texas passed a law requiring the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms? Really?!?Nothing like the TC to get a discussion of 2A going here. What's not to like about either? C'mon man! we need more of both. Add the Bill of Rights to the wall. Maybe some folks will actually READ them, and reflect.

Mike

 

[Recording Engineer]

Wow, Texas passed a law requiring the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms?

A bit late… That is not what happened.

The Senate voted, for it, the House decided not to vote; killing the proposal.

I suspect enough people knew this ground was not worth the dirt they stood on and not worth the time and money (to fight it out for many many years in court) from a conservative-government perspective. I would think any person with even an ounce of conservativeness would feel the same way. Obviously, those in support of this are letting something else overrun their American conservative-principles on this matter.

 

[pucho812]

I hate to point out the obvious but one reason for crime going down is they have changed how they count it. I live in l.a. we have had an 11% increase in crime from 2019 - 2022 while at the same time saw a decrease in violent crime by 3% in the same time period. If our d.a. Actually held people accountable I am sure that 11% increase would decrease.

 

[Matador]

The Senate voted, for it, the House decided not to vote; killing the proposal.

Indeed: it was 100% virtue signaling.

 

[Rusan]

I hate to point out the obvious but one reason for crime going down is they have changed how they count it.

My wife and I were discussing this a few days ago. Here's how it works: first, you legalize shoplifting and other forms of larceny up to a certain monetary amount, along with small-amount drug possession/dealing. Secondly, you reclassify the lowest class of felonies into misdemeanors. Thirdly, you defund the law enforcement agencies down to 20% of their original workforce, along with removing those remaining officers' power to do pretty much anything but gently admonish people for jaywalking. Finally, you install a touchy-feely, feel-good bleeding heart prosecuting attorney who is content to look the other way. Voila, you just lowered your crime rate numbers by 80%!

 

[JohnRoberts]

My wife and I were discussing this a few days ago. Here's how it works: first, you legalize shoplifting and other forms of larceny up to a certain monetary amount, along with small-amount drug possession/dealing. Secondly, you reclassify the lowest class of felonies into misdemeanors. Thirdly, you defund the law enforcement agencies down to 20% of their original workforce, along with removing those remaining officers' power to do pretty much anything but gently admonish people for jaywalking. Finally, you install a touchy-feely, feel-good bleeding heart prosecuting attorney who is content to look the other way. Voila, you just lowered your crime rate numbers by 80%!

sadly this has been going on in plain sight for years...

JR

 

[iomegaman]

My oldest child is the #3 District Attorney where she lives in California...for the record she is FOR much stricter gun laws (as are ALL of her co-workers/police) FOR much lesser penalties/decriminalizing drug crimes except for trafficking...AGAINST the death penalty, and FOR de-militarizing the police force.

She is one of only 2 people in that part of California who can write wire-taps warrants...
She basically says almost all of the policemen/sheriffs she works with are idiots and heavily racist (her husband is a black policeman who has had to sue the local police department for racial discrimination) but because the training standards and requirements to become a LEO are so low just about anyone can become a cop and the majority of the cops she works with have serious anger management issues...she is all for requiring mental health standards to be INCREASED for cops in general...but the difficulty is the unions, which also sort of LIKE to hamstring the cops by not paying for mental healthcare...

Her primary job is running the sex crimes division...most DA's can only do a couple of years in that department because its so gross...convictions are hard to get because a majority of the crimes are family related...getting people to testify is pretty hard...

Technology is starting to make her job a bit easier because criminals are generally intellectually incapacitated to some degree...she just put a guy away who killed his girlfriend...she was able to track his phone to within 1 meter of a knife display in Walmart the night he killed the girl...and to the exact location to where it happened while the phone was OFF...


But she is over-worked because most of the real crime goes unreported to the media and all of these "crime charts" have no real idea because there are innocent people involved that need to remain obscure and what data does get reported is all vetted by the agencies for the purpose of political funding.

She is in a very GOP controlled part of the State...at least her department is...most District Attorneys are way over-worked and could make tons more in the private sector...she certainly could but wants to be a Judge so this is her path.

We don't really know much more than what we are allowed to know, you can quote all the statistics you want, the real numbers are not really available for the average person...from what I can tell...most low level crime is a waste of time for Law Enforcement and the really dark crimes are so much darker than we hear...

 

[JohnRoberts]

My oldest child is the #3 District Attorney where she lives in California...for the record she is FOR much stricter gun laws (as are ALL of her co-workers/police) FOR much lesser penalties/decriminalizing drug crimes except for trafficking...AGAINST the death penalty, and FOR de-militarizing the police force.

She is one of only 2 people in that part of California who can write wire-taps warrants...
She basically says almost all of the policemen/sheriffs she works with are idiots and heavily racist (her husband is a black policeman who has had to sue the local police department for racial discrimination) but because the training standards and requirements to become a LEO are so low just about anyone can become a cop and the majority of the cops she works with have serious anger management issues...she is all for requiring mental health standards to be INCREASED for cops in general...but the difficulty is the unions, which also sort of LIKE to hamstring the cops by not paying for mental healthcare...

Her primary job is running the sex crimes division...most DA's can only do a couple of years in that department because its so gross...convictions are hard to get because a majority of the crimes are family related...getting people to testify is pretty hard...

Technology is starting to make her job a bit easier because criminals are generally intellectually incapacitated to some degree...she just put a guy away who killed his girlfriend...she was able to track his phone to within 1 meter of a knife display in Walmart the night he killed the girl...and to the exact location to where it happened while the phone was OFF...


But she is over-worked because most of the real crime goes unreported to the media and all of these "crime charts" have no real idea because there are innocent people involved that need to remain obscure and what data does get reported is all vetted by the agencies for the purpose of political funding.

She is in a very GOP controlled part of the State...at least her department is...most District Attorneys are way over-worked and could make tons more in the private sector...she certainly could but wants to be a Judge so this is her path.

We don't really know much more than what we are allowed to know, you can quote all the statistics you want, the real numbers are not really available for the average person...from what I can tell...most low level crime is a waste of time for Law Enforcement and the really dark crimes are so much darker than we hear...

the broken windows strategy suggests that cleaning up low level crime reduces all crime. AFAIK it was executed successfully in NYC decades ago.. Mayor Adams sounds like he is dusting it off for another try... not sure how far he will get with DA Brag letting everybody go.

JR

 

[AnalogPackrat]

Yes, correlation does not equal causation. Not just a misspelling, but also a misunderstanding of the principle, I am afraid.

I understand it quite well. And it is named for William of Ockham to whom it is attributed. Unfortunately there is a lot of clear anti-gun bias in much "science" produced by a few prolific individuals with PhDs in humanities.

And since "civility" is so often asked for, there is legitimate science behind these "crazy theories".

See above.

On the other hand, the criminological (scientific) evidence for the efficary of laws that indiscriminately punish repeat offenders isn't there.

Keeping repeat offenders out of society means they cannot perpetrate crimes. Get it? It doesn't take an advanced degree to understand that.

On the contrary, these (often unequally applied) laws tend to make hardened criminals out of petty ones.

Have you sat on a jury in an American courtroom where young repeat offenders are on trial? Have you looked into the cold, dead eyes of a killer as he stares down each juror during a murder trial?

This is a guy who was never sent to prison before and had gotten off with no serious punishment for prior gun and drug offenses. He was 23 at the time of the last crime (murder, attempted murder, conspiracy, plus gun charges) and was the leader of a gang. He led three other younger men 18 and 19 to ambush and attempt to kill a rival gang member (also a felon and illegally in possession of a pistol).

After the trial I stayed for the sentencing hearing and heard various family members beg the judge for leniency. After sentencing the prosecutor spoke to those of us who stayed. He told us that one of the younger guys had gotten involved with the gang stuff as a teen and that his mother had tried to get him involved in sports and other activities. When that didn't work she moved her whole family to another city three hours away. The kid found a way to come back to the town with his gang and participated in a violent shootout in a crowded apartment complex in the middle of the day.

These are the people doing the majority of the crime. They have no place in a civil society. They show no remorse. Their families cannot correct the problem. So save your preaching for something you've experienced.

The scientific (and practical) consensus in criminology is to be hard on serious offenders and mild on the small timers.

"Small timers" often move up to major crimes without having been to prison. Why should the rest of society be forced to tolerate crime? Look at what San Francisco has become in the last decade. It used to be a great place to visit, walk around, have a nice meal, see a concert. The policies you espouse have turned it into a craphole.

I can only continue to encourage you to read actual science instead of ideologically charged online/cable news "information".

Again, I read a lot of the same things you do. I just happen to be more skeptical of their theories having directly experienced the results. I don't form my opinion from ideologically charged sources like The Guardian or Breitbart.