FBI Report: Violent Crime drops 5.5%

[Falcon642]

In 2010, violent crime saw a drop of 5.5% compared to 2009. Violent crime dropped in all areas of the US.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43138270/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

The FBI reported that violent crime fell in all four regions of the country last year — 7.5 percent in the South, 5.9 in the Midwest, 5.8 percent in the West and 0.4 percent in the Northeast.

Generally speaking, if I were to rank those four areas from most restrictive gun laws to least I'd rank em something like this.

Northeast - thank you NY and Mass
West - Only because the west includes Oregon and Kalifornia
Midwest
South.

What do you know, the areas with the more restrictive gun laws saw a smaller drop in violent crime than the areas with less restrictive laws. A correlation perhaps?

[MashieNiblick]

let's be sure to take a look at and include the data dating from 2006 on as well- good stuff and only good things:

- http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...tables/table-3

Best and Kind Regards,
- MN

[Wildalaska]

What do you know, the areas with the more restrictive gun laws saw a smaller drop in violent crime than the areas with less restrictive laws. A correlation perhaps?

Not really.

WildahyestheoldmycorrelationisgoodbuttheothersidesisbadthreadAlaska ™©2002-2011

[Tom Servo]

A correlation perhaps?

We can't prove that, and we should be cautious of using it as an argument.

Let's say Town A has less restrictive gun laws, and they witness a drop in violent crime. It could be that they put more cops on the streets, that their economy improved, or that they've got a judge who's a stickler for minimum sentencing.

While it's easy and tempting to infer a causal relationship, we have to be able to prove it if we're to use it as a debate point, and that's hard to do.

[Fish_Scientist]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

We can't prove that, and we should be cautious of using it as an argument.

Let's say Town A has less restrictive gun laws, and they witness a drop in violent crime. It could be that they put more cops on the streets, that their economy improved, or that they've got a judge who's a stickler for minimum sentencing.

While it's easy and tempting to infer a causal relationship, we have to be able to prove it if we're to use it as a debate point, and that's hard to do.

Bingo.

Correlation does not equal causation.

Fish

[MashieNiblick]

i would hypothesize that a more accurate correlation may be found in an equation something closer to the effect of:

drop in violent crime rate percentages per region = (good hard work by federal agents + effective minority president) * (population density * cost of living + .10 * restrictive gun laws)

with hippy California as the/an outlier. . . .

Best and Kind Regards,
- MN

[MashieNiblick]

here's a breakdown link the OP was referring to for 2010:

- http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...tables/table-2

[MashieNiblick]

a more disturbing table:

- http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/killed/2009/data/table_01.html

Come on guys. . . An old sage saying- "if you can't do the time- don't do the crime!!!"

And another one, "i want to talk to a lawyer- that's all i have to say."

Best and Kind Regards,
- MN

[Tom Servo]

a more disturbing table: [table of law-enforcement casualties]

Actually, Washington state and Pennsylvania seem to rank highest among murdered LEO's. Both of those states have (fairly) lenient gun laws. On the other hand, New Jersey had one fatality in 2009, and New York had none.

In a debate, the opposition could easily throw these statistics up as a rebuttal to our arguments.

[2damnold4this]

I'd say it would be easy to show a correlation if it's there. It's harder to prove a causal link but correlations are easy.

[mes227]

Be careful trying to draw too much out of this data. Other correlations firmly exist:
---Great Britain, Canada and Australia, all with stringent gun control, have less than one-fifth the rate of violent crime as the US.

---California has been experiencing a 25-year long decline in violent crime, corresponding closely to their increasingly restrictive gun control (but also to a score of changes in the criminal justice system).

[Bamashooter]

Texas and Commiefornia looked like bad places to be law enforcement.

[Double Naught Spy]

Correlation does not equal causeation.

Yep there was a drop in those regions that were generally more gun friendly. So that makes them seem better off, right?

Not so fast. The NE which showed the least reduction already was at a level much lower than the more gun friendly regions.

2009 showed similar reductions, but look at the base from which the reductions occurred.

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_03.html

So the south had the greatest reduction? In 2009, they also had nearly triple the violent crime rate as the NE. So if you want to claim that violent crime went down more because the South was more gun-friendly than the NE, then how do you account for the South being so much worse off in the first place? Is the overall higher violent crime rate of the South also correlated with being gun friendly?

Did you ever think to consider that the reason why such places showed the most improvement were because they were places that were so much worse off originally?

A lot of the cities in the gun friendly South are also the cities noted as being some of the most unsafe in the country in regard to such crimes. Some of the safest cities were in the gun unfriendly NE as well.
http://www.bestplaces.net/docs/studies/crime1.aspx

[TeamSinglestack]

"Crime" doesn't concern me.

Being able to LEGALLY defend myself with firearms concerns me.

It's not about "crime". It's about the RIGHT to legally own and utilize firearms if you choose to do so.

[Double Naught Spy]

Right. Firearms don't seem to have any sort of significant impact on crime rates, at least not that can be substantiated. They do have a significant impact on an individual by individual basis for people to be able to protect themselves.

[rshanneck2002]

The weather has not got hot in the north yet,all the gangs are still hibernating somewhat., give it time,even a minority prez wont hold it down.,or any other reason they may or may not give. Peoples nature never changes for to long and even the cops know that.

[BlueTrain]

I'm not so sure there's any correlation at all, when I look at the figures, although I will cheerfully admit to cherry-picking the results, same as the rest of you. The statistics were listed by cities, and then only a few of them, so it makes a little more sense to compare cities of comparable size and the statistics leave out rural areas. And it doesn't mention non-violent crime.

Mobile, Alabama, for instance, with a population of 255,000, had 1702 violent crimes and 25 murders. Alexandria, Virginia, with a population of 225,000, had 863 violent crimes and 2 murders.

Tuscon, Arizona, with a population of 527,000 had 51 murders. San Diego, population 1,313,400 had 29 murders. Buffalo, NY, population 265,000 had 60 murders. Maybe climate makes a difference. Buffalo is cold, Tuscon hot, and San Diego is, well, perfect.

Not all categories of violent crime changes the same but overall, I'd say you could take the results and say just about anything.

[2damnold4this]

---Great Britain, Canada and Australia, all with stringent gun control, have less than one-fifth the rate of violent crime as the US.

I don't think that's correct

[Mainah]

The weather has not got hot in the north yet,all the gangs are still hibernating somewhat.,

I guess the gangs up here in Maine must hibernate all year, I never see them. We've got really low crime and relatively (for the Northeast) few gun restrictions. We've also got a really low population density, IMO that explains our crime rate more than anything.

Federal crime rates are often just a reflection on demographics, a spike in the population of young males can create a spike in crime.

[MashieNiblick]

here's a breakdown link the OP was referring to for 2010:

- http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...tables/table-2

Question: So, is column 1 a compilation or summation of columns 2- 10?

- If so, are columns 2- 10 ranked in terms of general criminal severity and tendency?

- If so, does the current criminal justice model consider columns 10 through 2 as gateway crimes in a kind of slippery slope of typical criminal activity?

Oh wait, or is column 1 a summation of columns 2- 5, and column 6 a compilation of columns 7- 10?

It seems as if LE would be/should be more concerned with columns 2, 3, 3, 4, and 5 this day. . . With crimes of column 4 and 5 typically taking place Monday- Wednesday and columns 2, 3 and 3 typically towards the wknd???

Not a very good breakout for this leighman regardless. This leighman would expect something a bit more clear. . . .


Best and Kind Regards.
Very Respectfully,
- MN- Making molehills out of mountains, pole vaulting mouse terds, and pole vaulting the norm. . . .

[Eghad]

What you must remember is that those numbers are only from the crimes that are reported.

[Tom Servo]

I don't think that's correct

Actually, it depends on where you get the statistics. I can find statistics from the WHO showing that America is an abattoir of gun violence, barely behind Rwanda. On the other hand, I'm sure I can find numbers showing the opposite. Data can be massaged.

Consider also the sources. The UK has a closed-source reporting system that reports suspiciously low crime rates, which conflict with anecdotal evidence. Last year, I spoke with a reporter from the Daily Mirror who told me that gun crime in London, per capita, was roughly on par with Chicago.

Of course, he couldn't get me anything from an official source, so I'm left with nothing I could use in a debate. Using statistics can be a slippery slope, and sometimes the debate comes down to "my statistics vs. yours," with no conclusive winner.

There's also a bit of a quagmire when comparing different locales with different socioeconomic factors. We all had our day refuting the Vancouver vs. Seattle gun control study along those lines a few years ago.

[Eghad]

If you do the numbers for Australia which I did once there is no preponderence of the numbers to prove the gun control argument either way if you are honest about it.

Because you cant prove that stricter gun control has had an effect of making them safer basically the folks in Australia were sold a bunch of bunk.

[BlueTrain]

There are all sorts of crimes and even so-called violent crimes are of different kinds. These days, in spite of suggestions that the statistics only reflect reported crimes, which is obviously true, it is also more likely (I think) that crimes are more likely to be reported. At one time a couple of boys having a serious fight would not make the statistics (fortunately for me) but these days it would be a major event. So perhaps only the reporting has changed. And there's no way you can tell me what the unreported stuff amounts to.

I do not doubt that much crime is not reported, probably more is undetected. Chances are, and this is just a guess, that in rural areas there is more unreported crime than in cities. Someone wrote in a gun magazine that his father moved to the city because he thought it was safer, while these days people move to the country because they think it's safer. Where I live you'd have to move 50 miles away.

Sometimes reported crimes are unbelieveable. Most local papers have a once-a-week crime report or police blotter column. Around here, there was actually a report of someone being pushed by someone who then ran away. Pretty serious stuff.

[alloy]

Last year didn't they make the counterintuitive statement that the worse the economy got the more the crime rate drops, based on thier stats?

What a nice leading economic indicator.