The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > General Discussion Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old June 5, 2009, 01:16 PM   #1
Wildalaska
Junior member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,174
What statistical conclusions about gun control can be drawn from FBI stats?

My usual responses is....none.

Read:

America's Safest Cities
Brandon Ott Brandon Ott Fri Jun 5, 1:00 am ET

When we think about cities in the United States, one thing almost always comes to mind: crime. What's more, we often associate our largest cities with being the most crime-riddled. But in fact, new data released by the FBI demonstrates many of our largest cities are quite safe when measured across a variety of categories.

According to FBI crime statistics released this week, the level of crime in cities across America fell in 2008. Nationally, violent crime fell 2.5% versus 2007, property crime fell 1.6%, and arson fell 3.5%. This is a welcome turn around, given that violent crime rate soared 2.3% from 2004 to 2005, with the murder rate and robberies increasing 3.4% and 3.9%, respectively. More striking is the fact that one would expect crime to spike in an economic downturn, yet this has not been the case so far. 2008 also saw the biggest decrease, year over year, in murder, robbery, aggravated assault and motor vehicle theft in the past four years.

In Depth: Click to See America's Top 10 Safest Cities

The violent crime category is comprised of murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Property crimes include burglary, larceny, and motor vehicle theft. Arson is a property crime, but its statistics are calculated separately.

Among cities with a population exceeding 500,000 residents, New York City (gun ban city) tops the list of safest cities in America. The Big Apple saw a decrease of 4% in violent crime from 2007, handily beating the national average. The overall drop consists of a 9% decrease in assaults (the largest sub category), but is marred by a 5.4% increase in murder, 1.7% increase in rape and a 1.8% increase in robbery. New York City's per-capita crime rate hovers at 4.2%.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg touted the continuing downtrend in crime activity, declaring that New York City has had "43 fewer murders, 1,415 fewer robberies and 491 fewer cars stolen" in the first five months of 2009 compared to 2008. Bloomberg continued, "Using innovative policing strategies and a focus on keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, we are continuing to do more with less, in spite of the economic downturn."

Tuscon, Arizona( gun loving city) however, does have a lower crime rate than New York City, at 2.9% per-capita, but a lack of property crime statistics prevents it from achieving the top spot.

After New York, America's safest cities are: San Jose, Los Angeles, San Diego (three heavy gun contol cities), El Paso (gun friendly), Honolulu (gun control), Denver (?), Boston (gun b, Las Vegas (control?) and Louisville (?).

And the U.S.'s least safe city? That distinction goes to Memphis, Tennessee, with a crime rate of 18% per capita, followed by Atlanta (16%), San Antonio (15.2%), Detroit (13.7%) and Milwaukee (13.4%).(arent all of these free and easy gun juriosdictions except for Detroit?) These rates reflect the total crimes detailed in the FBI's report divided by the population of the city.


New York also tops the list of safest cities with more than a million residents, beating out Chicago, Dallas, Houston, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Phoenix, San Diego and San Jose. These cities all saw an impressive reduction in all three major categories of crime.

Curiously, only the smallest category of cities - those with under ten thousand people - saw an increase in the number of murders, rapes and robberies.


WildismyconclusioncorrectfrombothsidesoftheargumentAlaska ™

Last edited by Wildalaska; June 5, 2009 at 01:24 PM.
Wildalaska is offline  
Old June 5, 2009, 01:20 PM   #2
Mr. James
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2001
Location: The Old Dominion
Posts: 1,521
Quote:
ismyconclusioncorrectfrombothsidesoftheargument
Yes.
__________________
"...A humble and contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise." Ps. li

"When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law." —Frederic Bastiat
Mr. James is offline  
Old June 5, 2009, 01:26 PM   #3
Wildalaska
Junior member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,174
Quote:
Yes.
Therefore, we can ban the endless and needless "Oh CCW reduces crime" canards?

WildsowedontlookassillasthebradygangAlaska ™
Wildalaska is offline  
Old June 5, 2009, 01:35 PM   #4
CortJestir
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Southern CT
Posts: 1,406
Wild, don't you know that the FBI crime stats are a liberal government conspiracy to prove that concealed carry does not reduce violent crime?

Seriously though, just more proof that stats really don't necessarily prove a correlation when there is more than one variable involved.
__________________
"They have men amongst them who know very well what they are about..."
- Lord Hugh Percy, on the events of April 19, 1775
Do you know what you're about? Find out at an Appleseed near you.

Last edited by CortJestir; June 5, 2009 at 04:46 PM.
CortJestir is offline  
Old June 5, 2009, 01:44 PM   #5
stargazer65
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 6, 2009
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 761
Quote:
Therefore, we can ban the endless and needless "Oh CCW reduces crime" canards?
You crack me up WA!

Quote:
Seriously though, just more proof that stats really don't necessarily prove a correlation when there is more than one variable involved.
Bingo, maybe the safer cities don't have anything worth stealing.
__________________
"I assert that nothing ever comes to pass without a cause." Jonathan Edwards
stargazer65 is offline  
Old June 5, 2009, 01:49 PM   #6
PhoenixConflagration
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 6, 2008
Location: Jacksonville, Fl
Posts: 517
Good point, Wild. Concealed Carry isn't supposed to be about reducing crime. It's about the individual's right to reduce the effects of violent crime on himself.
__________________
There is nothing quite so dangerous as a pacifist, for they will readily sacrifice others for their ideals.
PhoenixConflagration is offline  
Old June 5, 2009, 01:51 PM   #7
Wildalaska
Junior member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,174
Quote:
Bingo, maybe the safer cities don't have anything worth stealing.
Yeah there are no valuables in NYC or LA.....

WildmorerolexesthanataiwanairportAlaska ™
Wildalaska is offline  
Old June 5, 2009, 01:52 PM   #8
stargazer65
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 6, 2009
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 761
Quote:
WildmorerolexesthanataiwanairportAlaska ™
Yeah I know I was being sarcastic.
__________________
"I assert that nothing ever comes to pass without a cause." Jonathan Edwards
stargazer65 is offline  
Old June 5, 2009, 01:57 PM   #9
stargazer65
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 6, 2009
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 761
I agree with you WA. There is no proof that CCW reduces crime... that I know of anyway. But I'm in favor of it for the reason Phoenix suggested. Is that what you are saying? I'm thick, tell me if that is your point.
__________________
"I assert that nothing ever comes to pass without a cause." Jonathan Edwards
stargazer65 is offline  
Old June 5, 2009, 06:02 PM   #10
Mike Irwin
Staff
 
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 35,702
Milwaukee is not a gun friendly city, and Wisconsin is not a particularly gun friendly state.

Atlanta is not particularly gun friendly, but Georgia is, rather.

San Antonio I don't know about.

And Memphis has always had a reputation as being a horrifically crime ridden city.



"Therefore, we can ban the endless and needless "Oh CCW reduces crime" canards?"

And, actually, no, you can't.

Why?

Because if one CCW holder stops one crime, then CCW has, effectively, reduced crime.

The measurable effect might be small, but it exists.
__________________
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza

Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.
Mike Irwin is offline  
Old June 5, 2009, 09:10 PM   #11
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,529
San Antonio is a very gun friendly place. Our crime rate is a function of a demographic slice. Lots of the reported crime is drug and gang related. That wouldn't be deterred by CHLs among the demographic slice that carries.

The overall crime rate doesn't really look at this.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old June 5, 2009, 10:00 PM   #12
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,350
Quote:
Because if one CCW holder stops one crime, then CCW has, effectively, reduced crime.

The measurable effect might be small, but it exists.
Sadly, as obvious as that is.... it never occurred to me quite like that before.


Although "reduced" might better be stated "modified" since it really just went from a robbery or mugging to an ATTEMPTED robbery/mugging. I'd make that trade every time though.
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is online now  
Old June 5, 2009, 11:30 PM   #13
Shane Tuttle
Staff
 
Join Date: November 28, 2005
Location: Blue Grass, IA
Posts: 8,531
Quote:
San Antonio is a very gun friendly place. Our crime rate is a function of a demographic slice. Lots of the reported crime is drug and gang related. That wouldn't be deterred by CHLs among the demographic slice that carries.

The overall crime rate doesn't really look at this.
Now, if you can get Double Naught Spy to consider looking outside box rather than UCR, you would be the hero of the day...

I don't think there's any proof that CCW is a cause in reduction in crime. There are so many variables that aren't considered when trying to draw a conclusion on this issue as of late. The percentage of actual active CCW permit holders is so small that they can't show a dent. I think there needs to be a heavy saturation of CCW holders in a large geographical area (say 1 in 3 citizens) to prove "an armed society would prove to be a polite society". Until then, a cause in crime level reduction will only be at an individual level.
__________________
If it were up to me, the word "got" would be deleted from the English language.

Posting and YOU: http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/posting
Shane Tuttle is offline  
Old June 5, 2009, 11:57 PM   #14
SigfanTN
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 27, 2008
Posts: 183
Shelby County, TN reports north of 33,000 HCP holders. With an overall population of around 900,000, this represents roughly 3.5%. According to DOT numbers, this would also be one of the densest concentrations of HCP holders in the state. I'm betting the crime rate is the major driving factor in the number of HCP applications, but I doubt those who commit crimes are taking notice.

I remember reading somewhere that certain studies have shown a reduction in violent crimes and an increase in property crime in places with permits. There are too many variables to draw any substantive conclusions either way, in my opinion.

Quote:
ismyconclusioncorrectfrombothsidesoftheargument
Perhaps we should abandon the argument that CCW reduces crime on a large scale, but
Quote:
if one CCW holder stops one crime, then CCW has, effectively, reduced crime.

The measurable effect might be small, but it exists.
I cannot argue with this. Goes well as a counter to the opposition's argument "that if it saves one life...."
SigfanTN is offline  
Old June 6, 2009, 01:25 AM   #15
BillCA
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 28, 2004
Location: Silicon Valley, Ca
Posts: 7,087
Wild,

I think the conclusions we can draw from the UCR are:
- Its stats are imperfect, but that's what we've got.
- The UCR is insufficiently detailed for in-depth analysis
- Year-to-year stats don't show real trends
- YTD figures are always optimistic
- Crime rate is a better measure than percentages.

Living in San Jose (2nd safest per the above) I can tell you there is still plenty of crime, plenty of criminals on the streets and daily incidents of robbery, stabbings, beatings, rape and other assaults. I have 8 different frequencies on the scanner and it's not infrequent that two or more are operating "Code 33" (restricted/emergency-only traffic) at a time.

And any city in California can be considered a "gun control" city if you look at state laws. San Jose/San Diego/ Lost Angeles are not much worse than the state laws.

Re: Impact on Crime - I think what determines the crime stats for any given region are more subtle and complex than most people think about. Among other things that affect an area's crime rate are:
- Average education level
- Types/variability of employment in the area
- Median income
- Median income disparity (rich v. poor)
- Average number of working hours per week, per capita
- Spiritual/religous participation
- Divorce rate/percentage of single-parent homes
- Professional competency of the area's police services
- Amount of drug use/sales in the area
- Prevelance or ease of drug sales in the area
- Types of drugs used in the area
- Gang activity and violence

Comments:
  • The more educated the population, the less likely their involvement in violent crime as a rule. More options for employment exist.
  • Crime may be higher in areas with only one or two major employers, especially if other jobs are low-end ones.
  • The more people work per week, the less energy & time they have to commit crimes or think of it.
  • Single parent homes are more likely to have a youngster involved in some form of mischief or crime.
  • If the police force isn't effective at making arrests and making prosecutable cases, crime will be higher.
  • Certain types of drugs, like meth, result in higher crime rates, especially for property crimes. High alcohol consumption adds to crime as well.

That's my $0.20 worth (adjusted for inflation)
__________________
BillCA in CA (Unfortunately)
BillCA is offline  
Old June 6, 2009, 01:41 AM   #16
Wildalaska
Junior member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,174
Quote:
Because if one CCW holder stops one crime, then CCW has, effectively, reduced crime.

The measurable effect might be small, but it exists.
Because if gun contol stops one crime, then gun control has, effectively, reduced crime.

The measurable effect might be small, but it exists.

WildithinkilikemyideabetterAlaska TM
Wildalaska is offline  
Old June 6, 2009, 05:07 AM   #17
209
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 16, 2006
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 269
The UCR is very specific in its definitions. Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault fall in the violent crime stats. Other assaults aren't considered "violent crimes".

While I'm not insinuating that crimes are downgraded, it's easy to have an assault that is listed as a lessor offense. Since high crime rates are a political football..... Nuff said.
209 is offline  
Old June 6, 2009, 05:52 AM   #18
stargazer65
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 6, 2009
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 761
Quote:
Because if gun contol stops one crime, then gun control has, effectively, reduced crime.

The measurable effect might be small, but it exists.

WildithinkilikemyideabetterAlaska TM
I don't think that analogy is a good one, because it strips a right from the innocent. Allowing CCW does not deprive anyone of a right. I don't believe in blindly basing laws on statistics in either case.
__________________
"I assert that nothing ever comes to pass without a cause." Jonathan Edwards
stargazer65 is offline  
Old June 6, 2009, 08:58 AM   #19
JagFarlane
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 7, 2008
Posts: 282
I'd have to go more with BillCA on this. There are too many factors that come into play in regards to making this decision. I also prefer the stats of # crimes per 100K individuals.
Then, just something for all those nifty lawmakers to consider...in what developed country are you most likely to get assaulted? Would you believe....Scotland!? You're actually 3 times more likely to be assaulted in Scotland than in the US, go figure. [Oh wait, aren't they under the UK who is big against private ownership of firearms ]
__________________
Too many to list...enjoy em all!
JagFarlane is offline  
Old June 7, 2009, 08:45 AM   #20
Waitone
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 19, 2000
Posts: 2,904
As long as local authorities have discretion in just exactly what charges are lodged against a perp there will always be some kind of bias to the numbers. Crime statistics are an element of effective location advertising just like the number of schools, days with sunshine, and local tax rates. The more active the location is in marketing itself the greater the gamesmanship played with crime stats.
__________________
"Given a choice between good intentions and human nature, I'll go with human nature every time."--Me, 2002.
Waitone is offline  
Old June 7, 2009, 08:58 AM   #21
Dragon55
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2009
Location: East Tennessee
Posts: 811
As alluded to above crime stats are compiled by individuals working for a politician to create the illusion of crime decline during their administration which can be used in their re-election campaign.
__________________
sailing ... A way to spend lots of money and go real S L O W
Dragon55 is offline  
Old June 7, 2009, 11:28 AM   #22
Winterhawk56
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 9, 2008
Location: Southern California
Posts: 221
I have read the report (FBI) for the past few years and one thing has come to light.

You need to look at the individual crime IE, Robbery, Rape ETC... to see if it has really dropped. Just because the over all has dropped does not make it safe! as the percentages are for the overall

We need to remember this "for now" this is a free nation and we should do our best keep it this way, despite the corrent political powers! We should all have the right to protect and defend and "The Right To Keep and Bare Arms"

Crime will go up and down based on factors we do not control directly but we can control our own lives and that of our families to not be a victim.

One last comment if Obama passes CIFTA (ratified by Congress) we will all be in BIG trouble and then it really wont make any difference as only Police and Military will have guns! Oh and criminals

Last edited by Winterhawk56; June 7, 2009 at 03:16 PM.
Winterhawk56 is offline  
Old June 7, 2009, 10:03 PM   #23
Tucker 1371
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 29, 2008
Location: East TN
Posts: 1,966
Quote:
The percentage of actual active CCW permit holders is so small that they can't show a dent. I think there needs to be a heavy saturation of CCW holders in a large geographical area (say 1 in 3 citizens) to prove "an armed society would prove to be a polite society". Until then, a cause in crime level reduction will only be at an individual level.
+1, hit the nail on the head.


Quote:
Quote:
Because if gun contol stops one crime, then gun control has, effectively, reduced crime.

The measurable effect might be small, but it exists.

WildithinkilikemyideabetterAlaska TM
I don't think that analogy is a good one, because it strips a right from the innocent. Allowing CCW does not deprive anyone of a right. I don't believe in blindly basing laws on statistics in either case.
Well, if one crime is stopped by gun control, and another is stopped by a CCW holder then both have effectively achieved the same thing, although one has achieved it with little inconvenience to the general population... can anyone tell me which one that is? The only thing to consider is which one achieves it to a greater extent. Still, the idea behind CCW is individual right to self defense, not crime reduction. Bottom line: statistics don't really mean didly.


You don't really like that idea better, do you WA? Just trying to prove a point right?
__________________
NCO of Marines, 3rd Award Expert Rifle, 236 KD Range
D Co, 4th CEB, Engineers UP!! OEF 21JUN-20SEP2011
REV. 19:11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.

Last edited by Tucker 1371; June 7, 2009 at 10:26 PM. Reason: Feeling guilty for copying WA and not doing it anymore
Tucker 1371 is offline  
Old June 7, 2009, 11:03 PM   #24
christcorp
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 4, 2007
Location: Cheyenne, Wyoming
Posts: 1,107
Such stats can not be used for ANYTHING other than to say that a particular place had MORE or LESS crimes in one particular year over another. Crime/Population comparison is not linear. In other words; to say that a town of 100,000 had 1,000 crimes and a town of 1,000,000 had 10,000 crimes are exactly the same because they have the same percentage, is totally inaccurate. Even the statisticians recognize this, or they wouldn't but the towns into categories of Small town, medium town, large city, under 100,000; 100,000 to 500,000; over 1 million, etc... There are so many variables when it comes to crime. Economics, drugs, organized crime, unemployment, stress, illegal immigration, etc... Some towns, like where I currently live, probably hasn't had a case of arson in decades. However, domestic violence can be quite high. Murders on the other hand are very low; as are personal crimes in public and home robberies. Drugs however can be high and thus other types of crimes such as robberies of businesses. In another town/city; it could be totally different with very little domestic violence, but a very high rate of murder.

There is no relativity to such statistics other than to see that particular town/city's upward or downward trend in crime.
christcorp is offline  
Old June 7, 2009, 11:55 PM   #25
Willie D
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 24, 2007
Posts: 1,116
This was basically the conclusion in Freakonomics. Gun control or lack thereof didn't make a statistical difference one way or the other. (More cops and more 'stop and frisk' in high crime area were the only law enforcement strategies that did help)
Willie D is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:18 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.15514 seconds with 7 queries