Recent Forum Topics › Forums › The Public House › What's Behind The Decline In Crime?
- This topic has 13 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 5 months ago by Mackeyser.
-
AuthorPosts
-
June 16, 2016 at 11:51 am #46314znModerator
What’s Behind The Decline In Crime?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/neilhowe/2015/05/28/whats-behind-the-decline-in-crime/#7c4904517733
From Bed-Stuy to South Central Los Angeles, areas once known for drug lords and drive-bys are gentrifying. Today, murder rates in these areas are barely a third of what they were in the early 1990s—the starkest reflections of a nationwide decline in crime. While the public remains largely unaware of this drop, experts have been observing and discussing it for years. Though many theories have been considered, one explanation that is often missing from the debate is generational change: Crime rates started to fall precisely when Millennials entered the prime age bracket for criminal activity.
Crime rates have plunged since the mid-‘90s. After rising sporadically from the early ‘60s onwards, crime rates reached unprecedented peaks in the ‘80s and early ‘90s. It wasn’t until 1995 that crime’s climb gave way to decades of decline. As of 2013, the rate of violent crime victimization, as measured by the U.S. National Victimization Survey, is down 71% from its peak in 1994. Over this same period, the rate of violent crime victimizations for 12- to 24-year-olds—the age bracket most likely to commit crime—fell 78%. Many of these youths are moving to large cities, which is just where violence has subsided the most. Washington, D.C. and Los Angeles have experienced 76% and 90% decreases in the murder rate since 1992, respectively.
Number of Violent Crime Victimizations by Age (1993-2013)
Interestingly, the public remains largely unaware of this trend. In every annual Gallup poll since 2003, a majority of American adults have said that crime is rising. And in a 2013 poll, 56% of Americans said that the number of gun crimes is higher than it was two decades ago—even though gun violence peaked in 1993. The public also clings to outdated notions about which cities are the most dangerous. Although New York City’s violent crime rate is about half that of Dallas or Houston, survey respondents continue to rank New York as the second-most unsafe city in the country and Dallas and Houston as the safest.
Experts are well-aware of this trend and have generated a multitude of theories, none of which hold up under scrutiny. The prosperity thesis argues that crime rates fall when economic conditions improve and rise when the economy sours. While this reasoning seemed to explain falling crime rates during the economic boom of the late ‘90s, it doesn’t explain why crime continued to fall during the recent recession.
Another set of explanations credits changes to the criminal justice system. According to the incarceration argument, crime has declined because more potential offenders are behind bars. But crime rates have continued to fall in states that have lowered their incarceration rates. And the incarceration rate of young offenders is going down (as the rate of older offenders goes up). Another argument is that the death penalty deters criminals. But capital punishment has been in decline since the early ‘00s—and crime rates have continued to fall. Others credit a larger police presence and improved policing tactics. Yet if this were the main driver, we would expect to see dramatic city-by-city differences based on which cities implemented these new tactics—but we don’t see much variation.
June 16, 2016 at 11:57 am #46317Billy_TParticipantIt’s very controversial, and obviously open to debate, but another possible factor:
Lead.
The reduction in lead poisoning may well have been a big part of the reduction in crime. Unfortunately, it’s likely to go back up, as our infrastructure continues to break down, especially our water systems. It used to be the biggest carriers were paint, roofing, building materials in general. But now it looks like we’re in for a wave of lead poisoning via our water systems. Flint is just one of thousands of potential crises.
It would not surprise me in the slightest if we see a major spike in violent crimes in the coming decades.
June 16, 2016 at 12:05 pm #46320znModeratorActually, BT, me posting that article is misleading in this sense. I actually don’t care that much about what caused it. I take that discussion as being mostly just speculation. I am mostly interested in the fact that crime rates in general DID decrease.
As it happens, I have this semi-lazy way of doing research on that. I add an article here, an article there, hoping others add stuff too, so that we collect a kind of “discussion core” and take it from there. As it just happens, the first thing I posted was about the “why” question.
I am actually personally much more interested in the “did go down” fact…plus the national misperception of that fact…than in the “why” question.
June 16, 2016 at 12:17 pm #46324Billy_TParticipantOkay. That makes sense.
Yeah, the cognitive disconnect between perceptions and reality. Crime falling for decades, while fear rises. Though, as Nittany mentioned (before I did), the frequency of mass shootings is going up. Total numbers down. Mass shootings up.
We also have one of those weird disconnects with total numbers of guns going up and up, while households with them decline. As in, already existing gun owners are hoarding them, while fewer households total own them now.
June 16, 2016 at 12:44 pm #46334bnwBlockedWhat’s Behind The Decline In Crime?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/neilhowe/2015/05/28/whats-behind-the-decline-in-crime/#7c4904517733
From Bed-Stuy to South Central Los Angeles, areas once known for drug lords and drive-bys are gentrifying. Today, murder rates in these areas are barely a third of what they were in the early 1990s—the starkest reflections of a nationwide decline in crime. While the public remains largely unaware of this drop, experts have been observing and discussing it for years. Though many theories have been considered, one explanation that is often missing from the debate is generational change: Crime rates started to fall precisely when Millennials entered the prime age bracket for criminal activity.
Crime rates have plunged since the mid-‘90s. After rising sporadically from the early ‘60s onwards, crime rates reached unprecedented peaks in the ‘80s and early ‘90s. It wasn’t until 1995 that crime’s climb gave way to decades of decline. As of 2013, the rate of violent crime victimization, as measured by the U.S. National Victimization Survey, is down 71% from its peak in 1994. Over this same period, the rate of violent crime victimizations for 12- to 24-year-olds—the age bracket most likely to commit crime—fell 78%. Many of these youths are moving to large cities, which is just where violence has subsided the most. Washington, D.C. and Los Angeles have experienced 76% and 90% decreases in the murder rate since 1992, respectively.
Number of Violent Crime Victimizations by Age (1993-2013)
Interestingly, the public remains largely unaware of this trend. In every annual Gallup poll since 2003, a majority of American adults have said that crime is rising. And in a 2013 poll, 56% of Americans said that the number of gun crimes is higher than it was two decades ago—even though gun violence peaked in 1993. The public also clings to outdated notions about which cities are the most dangerous. Although New York City’s violent crime rate is about half that of Dallas or Houston, survey respondents continue to rank New York as the second-most unsafe city in the country and Dallas and Houston as the safest.
Experts are well-aware of this trend and have generated a multitude of theories, none of which hold up under scrutiny. The prosperity thesis argues that crime rates fall when economic conditions improve and rise when the economy sours. While this reasoning seemed to explain falling crime rates during the economic boom of the late ‘90s, it doesn’t explain why crime continued to fall during the recent recession.
Another set of explanations credits changes to the criminal justice system. According to the incarceration argument, crime has declined because more potential offenders are behind bars. But crime rates have continued to fall in states that have lowered their incarceration rates. And the incarceration rate of young offenders is going down (as the rate of older offenders goes up). Another argument is that the death penalty deters criminals. But capital punishment has been in decline since the early ‘00s—and crime rates have continued to fall. Others credit a larger police presence and improved policing tactics. Yet if this were the main driver, we would expect to see dramatic city-by-city differences based on which cities implemented these new tactics—but we don’t see much variation.
More guns period and more guns in law abiding hands. Much more conceal carry too.
The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.
Sprinkles are for winners.
June 16, 2016 at 12:46 pm #46336znModeratorTotal numbers down. Mass shootings up.
I generally take it that mass shootings have risen as a direct result of letting The Federal Assault Weapons Ban expire in 2004 and then failing to renew it.
.
June 16, 2016 at 12:48 pm #46337Billy_TParticipantMateen had a concealed carry license. You were saying?
And we know that the places with the most guns have the most gun violence. We also know that people with guns in the home are many times more likely to die from guns than people without them in the home — especially women. Same goes with people who carry them on the streets.
The risk goes up when people own guns. Not down.
June 16, 2016 at 12:54 pm #46340znModeratorMore guns period and more guns in law abiding hands. Much more conceal carry too.
That cannot be proven. In fact it’s NRA bs. The “fact” is controversial and of course open to the usual propaganda maneuvering. This is again a pure example of many people believing what they want to believe and then publicizing those beliefs as “true”…with the rest of us actually trying to sort out facts in the midst of all the posturing.
Here is just one of many, many statements on this from the other side.
—
from What Caused the Two-Decade Dip in Crime Rates? Not ‘Good Guys with Guns.’
Gun rights advocates claim concealed carry is the answer to stopping criminals. The data says that’s simply not possible.link: https://www.thetrace.org/2015/10/lower-crime-rates-not-caused-by-concealed-carry/
The study analyzes a decade of data from every county in Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Texas, the only states with at least a decade of reported data on permit holders and arrest rates after the implementation of their RTC laws (an explanation of their methodology that, unlike what Lott misleadingly suggests in a rebuttal, is very clearly delineated). Using several statistical models, Phillips found no significant relationship between changes in concealed carry rates and changes in any crime rate. In other words, the study found no evidence that increasing the number of permit holders decreases (or increases) crime.
==
June 16, 2016 at 12:59 pm #46343Billy_TParticipantI generally take it that mass shootings have risen as a direct result of letting The Federal Assault Weapons Ban expire in 2004 and then failing to renew it.
That does look to be the cause and effect. And it’s entirely logical. Reverse engineer that, and it’s also entirely logical to institute the ban again — and update for new tech. Also, remove the exemptions from the old one. Just make it strict, across the board.
June 16, 2016 at 2:28 pm #46355bnwBlockedTotal numbers down. Mass shootings up.
I generally take it that mass shootings have risen as a direct result of letting The Federal Assault Weapons Ban expire in 2004 and then failing to renew it.
.
For firepower that ban did absolutely nothing! Why can’t you understand that? The AR-15s produced during the ban were functionally the same as the pre-ban. They fired at the same cyclic rate. They used the same ammo. They accepted the same high capacity mags. The only major difference was the stock was slightly altered and the mag sold with it was smaller capacity to civilians though pre-ban high capacity mags were always made available.
Here I’ll let someone else say the same fracking thing.
“Problems with the 1994 Federal Ban
Although it undoubtedly kept many dangerous weapons off the market, there were several problems with the 1994 federal ban.
First, the ban’s efficacy was undermined in part by provisions that allowed assault weapons and large-capacity magazines manufactured prior to 1994 to remain on the market and in circulation (and to be imported from other countries). Because of this, as many as 200 million assault weapons remained in legal circulation in the United States.
The second problem was in how assault weapons were defined. The ban enumerated 18 kinds of firearms, along with numerous military-like features that made a weapon illegal for civilian purchase and possession. Firearms manufacturers responded by tweaking their designs just enough so as not to fall into the definition, which left the resulting modified weapons just as dangerous as their banned counterparts.”
http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/the-federal-assault-weapons-ban.htmThe upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.
Sprinkles are for winners.
June 16, 2016 at 2:31 pm #46356bnwBlockedI generally take it that mass shootings have risen as a direct result of letting The Federal Assault Weapons Ban expire in 2004 and then failing to renew it.
That does look to be the cause and effect. And it’s entirely logical. Reverse engineer that, and it’s also entirely logical to institute the ban again — and update for new tech. Also, remove the exemptions from the old one. Just make it strict, across the board.
Wrong again boyz. Read my post above.
The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.
Sprinkles are for winners.
June 16, 2016 at 2:44 pm #46357znModeratorWrong again boyz. Read my post above.
Without pushing this point too hard, I take it you mean “I have a different opinion of this.”
That of course gets all amped up in debates like this where everyone’s narrative buy-in is offered as a hard, cold truth. That’s just how the game gets played.
As for your post, I knew the Fox narrative on this before posting. I think that all that’s just more or less what someone with a deep belief in their side would say. I don’t feel obliged to debate it…I figure people who are entrenched aren’t really discussing things. Advocates are advocates. A team rep for the Bengals is not going to give me a very nuanced view of their team. It’s just team advocacy. I find in discussion like this if someone just keep repeating their party line, they don’t get as many substantive responses. It doesn’t become real discussion.
June 16, 2016 at 3:23 pm #46361bnwBlockedWrong again boyz. Read my post above.
Without pushing this point too hard, I take it you mean “I have a different opinion of this.”
That of course gets all amped up in debates like this where everyone’s narrative buy-in is offered as a hard, cold truth. That’s just how the game gets played.
As for your post, I knew the Fox narrative on this before posting. I think that all that’s just more or less what someone with a deep belief in their side would say. I don’t feel obliged to debate it…I figure people who are entrenched aren’t really discussing things. Advocates are advocates. A team rep for the Bengals is not going to give me a very nuanced view of their team. It’s just team advocacy. I find in discussion like this if someone just keep repeating their party line, they don’t get as many substantive responses. It doesn’t become real discussion.
NO! Stop accusing me of something I haven’t done. It is time for you to READ MY POST. Were you buying these so called “assault weapons” before the ’94 ban and during the ban? I was. I know damn well what I’m writing about. I don’t need ANY other source to do so either. Throughout this entire WEEK of discussion I have given THE FACTS regarding the ’94 ban because I bought and traded such rifles LEGALLY. I know what the differences were pre-ban, ban and post ban. You are far and away WRONG and there isn’t a darn thing nuanced about that!
This is so simple to verify. Call a gun shop. Call the ATF. Be sure you speak to someone who was in their respective business pre-ban, ban and post ban and they will tell you the same!
The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.
Sprinkles are for winners.
June 17, 2016 at 3:38 am #46404MackeyserModeratorDo not care about gun porn.
Don’t care about the AR-15. Not that guns can’t look sexy… The Thor XM-408 is pretty snazzy. With the Cheytac .408 ammo, that bad boy’s about the longest, most accurate platform on the playground. I’d say metaphorically speaking, but in today’s age, who knows. Thing is the Thor XM-408 is a sniper rifle, heavy (not nearly as heavy as that beast Barrett .50 cal), but it ain’t light, neither.
Point being it’s not about heading into the weeds about pre-ban, ban or post ban.
The point was RTC doesn’t diminish crime. And we have 10 years of data that proves it.
Then again, we have 40 straight years that Trickle Down/Supply Side economics doesn’t work and we’ve kept doubling down so much on that that the richest 28 Americans own as much as the bottom HALF of all Americans.
So I guess we have at least 30 more years of killing ourselves before we learn because as Bill Maher puts it, “Americans are stupid”. Or maybe we learn sooner.
Nah.
Sports is the crucible of human virtue. The distillate remains are human vice.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.