Violent Crime

[Arkady]

I'm top-posting this for general consideration.

As I mentioned earlier this week, in 2015, murder rates rose, bucking a longer-term trend of considerable decline. When I dug into those stats, something interesting showed up. It turns out that non-firearm murders actually declined. In fact, there was a 3% decline, even as the population continued to grow. It's just that murder using firearms shot up suddenly, overwhelming that trend.

What I didn't post about, because I hadn't looked into it, was whether the same was true for violent crime generally. Well, I've dug into it now. The FBI reports weapon status on two types of violent crime: robbery and aggravated assault. Between 2014 and 2015, robbery not using firearms declined 0.4% (as population grow about 0.8%). So, as with non-firearm murders and property crime, it was continuing the longer run of improvement in crime stats generally. However, robbery using firearms rose 1.7%, overwhelming that improvement.

Aggravated assault is a little different, since even non-firearm aggravated assault got a little worse (rising about 0.9% after adjusting for population growth). However, aggravated assault using firearms was the big story, with a rise of 11.9%, even after adjusting for population growth.

If we looked only at the non-gun stats, 2015 would have been another good year in a long string of good years for crime stats. We'd then be saying property crime, murder, and robbery were all down, and aggravated assaults were only up slightly. But, looking at the stats for crimes involving guns, it's a different story.

So, what happened in 2015 with guns? Was there a big surge in ownership? Some change in the culture about when and how people use them? Some change in the demographics of gun owners? A greater number of owners actually carrying? Does anyone have data we can use to examine those questions?

 

[Wolfert Webber]

I'm top-posting this for general consideration.

As I mentioned earlier this week, in 2015, murder rates rose, bucking a longer-term trend of considerable decline. When I dug into those stats, something interesting showed up. It turns out that non-firearm murders actually declined, just like they'd tended to do for years, and just like property crimes declined. In fact, there was a 3% decline in the number of non-firearm murders in 2015, even as the population continued to grow. It's just that murder using firearms shot up suddenly, overwhelming that trend.

What I didn't post about, because I hadn't looked into it, was whether the same was true for violent crime generally. Well, I've dug into it now. The FBI reports weapon status on two types of violent crime: robbery and aggravated assault. Between 2014 and 2015, robbery non using firearms declined 0.4% (as population grow about 0.8%). So, as with non-firearm murders and property crime, it was continuing the longer run of improvement in crime stats generally. However, robbery using firearms rose 1.7%, overwhelming that improvement.

Aggravated assault is a little different, since even non-firearm aggravated assault got a little worse (rising about 0.9% after adjusting for population growth). However, aggravated assault using firearms was the big story, with a rise of 11.9%, even after adjusting for population growth.



If we looked only at the non-gun stats, 2015 would have been another good year in a long string of good years for crime stats. We'd then be saying property crime, murder, and robbery were all down, and aggravated assaults were only up slightly. But, looking at the stats for crimes involving guns, it's a different story.

So, what happened in 2015 with guns? Was there a big surge in ownership? Some change in the culture about when and how people use them? Some change in the demographics of gun owners? Does anyone have data we can use to examine those questions?

How would we rate worldwide without black murders?

 

[Arkady]

How would we rate worldwide without black murders?

Better than we do. However, then you've got an apples-to-oranges comparison: you'd be comparing the US without one of its most problematic demographics, versus other countries while counting their entire populations, including their most problematic demographics. That doesn't tell us anything. Heck, you could do even better by excluding men, or excluding people in their 20s-40s. That kind of cherry-picking doesn't get us anywhere, though.

For purposes of this particular question --what happened in 2015 relative to 2014-- the change definitely wasn't attributable to blacks specifically. In 2014 blacks committed 37.2% of murders in this country, versus 36.7% in 2015. That continues a long-term trend of blacks committing lower and lower shares of overall murders:

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u....murder_offenders_by_age_sex_and_race_2015.xls
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u....murder_offenders_by_age_sex_and_race_2014.xls

 

[Arkady]

I'm top-posting this for general consideration.

As I mentioned earlier this week, in 2015, murder rates rose, bucking a longer-term trend of considerable decline. When I dug into those stats, something interesting showed up. It turns out that non-firearm murders actually declined. In fact, there was a 3% decline, even as the population continued to grow. It's just that murder using firearms shot up suddenly, overwhelming that trend.

What I didn't post about, because I hadn't looked into it, was whether the same was true for violent crime generally. Well, I've dug into it now. The FBI reports weapon status on two types of violent crime: robbery and aggravated assault. Between 2014 and 2015, robbery not using firearms declined 0.4% (as population grow about 0.8%). So, as with non-firearm murders and property crime, it was continuing the longer run of improvement in crime stats generally. However, robbery using firearms rose 1.7%, overwhelming that improvement.

Aggravated assault is a little different, since even non-firearm aggravated assault got a little worse (rising about 0.9% after adjusting for population growth). However, aggravated assault using firearms was the big story, with a rise of 11.9%, even after adjusting for population growth.

If we looked only at the non-gun stats, 2015 would have been another good year in a long string of good years for crime stats. We'd then be saying property crime, murder, and robbery were all down, and aggravated assaults were only up slightly. But, looking at the stats for crimes involving guns, it's a different story.

So, what happened in 2015 with guns? Was there a big surge in ownership? Some change in the culture about when and how people use them? Some change in the demographics of gun owners? A greater number of owners actually carrying? Does anyone have data we can use to examine those questions?

Come on, I know there are plenty of people interested in guns here -- surely someone has some stats on 2015 gun ownership rates or carry permits, or something of that sort that we could use to see if there was some change regarding guns to which we could attribute this gun-specific crime wave.

 

[Deleted member 21794]

Better than we do. However, then you've got an apples-to-oranges comparison: you'd be comparing the US without one of its most problematic demographics, versus other countries while counting their entire populations, including their most problematic demographics. That doesn't tell us anything. Heck, you could do even better by excluding men, or excluding people in their 20s-40s. That kind of cherry-picking doesn't get us anywhere, though.

For purposes of this particular question --what happened in 2015 relative to 2014-- the change definitely wasn't attributable to blacks specifically. In 2014 blacks committed 37.2% of murders in this country, versus 36.7% in 2015. That continues a long-term trend of blacks committing lower and lower shares of overall murders:

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u....murder_offenders_by_age_sex_and_race_2015.xls
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u....murder_offenders_by_age_sex_and_race_2014.xls

I think it tells us much. When you have a demographic committing around three times their per capita in murders, whether with guns, bats, knives or bricks, that tells me there's a problem with that demographic. It makes far better sense to target criminals rather than law-abiding citizens.

 

[Wolfert Webber]

I have a theory.

As low income ghetto rats commit more and more crime with stolen guns, more and more law abiding citizens decide to become gun owners(not gun thieves is possession of stolen property).

 

[Deleted member 21794]

Come on, I know there are plenty of people interested in guns here -- surely someone has some stats on 2015 gun ownership rates or carry permits, or something of that sort that we could use to see if there was some change regarding guns to which we could attribute this gun-specific crime wave.

It's a change in morals with some racial agitation added for color. Moral people don't commit crimes. Losers do. Gun laws aren't going to change that.

I suspect I would gladly trust you with owning as many AR-15s and semiautomatic pistols that you want. If you announced you had an arsenal, I'd say good for you and not be concerned one bit.

 

[Wolfert Webber]

I think it tells us much. When you have a demographic committing around three times their per capita in murders, whether with guns, bats, knives or bricks, that tells me there's a problem with that demographic. It makes far better sense to target criminals rather than law-abiding citizens.

As to law-abiding citizens, government has seen to it, through its system of complex and even contradictory laws and edicts, that there are very few law abiding citizens.

They got something on most all of us, if they choose.

 

[Dawg]

I'm top-posting this for general consideration.

As I mentioned earlier this week, in 2015, murder rates rose, bucking a longer-term trend of considerable decline. When I dug into those stats, something interesting showed up. It turns out that non-firearm murders actually declined. In fact, there was a 3% decline, even as the population continued to grow. It's just that murder using firearms shot up suddenly, overwhelming that trend.

What I didn't post about, because I hadn't looked into it, was whether the same was true for violent crime generally. Well, I've dug into it now. The FBI reports weapon status on two types of violent crime: robbery and aggravated assault. Between 2014 and 2015, robbery not using firearms declined 0.4% (as population grow about 0.8%). So, as with non-firearm murders and property crime, it was continuing the longer run of improvement in crime stats generally. However, robbery using firearms rose 1.7%, overwhelming that improvement.

Aggravated assault is a little different, since even non-firearm aggravated assault got a little worse (rising about 0.9% after adjusting for population growth). However, aggravated assault using firearms was the big story, with a rise of 11.9%, even after adjusting for population growth.

If we looked only at the non-gun stats, 2015 would have been another good year in a long string of good years for crime stats. We'd then be saying property crime, murder, and robbery were all down, and aggravated assaults were only up slightly. But, looking at the stats for crimes involving guns, it's a different story.

So, what happened in 2015 with guns? Was there a big surge in ownership? Some change in the culture about when and how people use them? Some change in the demographics of gun owners? A greater number of owners actually carrying? Does anyone have data we can use to examine those questions?

That's why they have a GENERAL DISCUSSION to post such in, this is not Political or Current News............

 

[Dawg]

Come on, I know there are plenty of people interested in guns here -- surely someone has some stats on 2015 gun ownership rates or carry permits, or something of that sort that we could use to see if there was some change regarding guns to which we could attribute this gun-specific crime wave.

Yes there is, but, few that wish to read your diatribes.......

shouldn't you be out running a 10K for charity?

 

[Arkady]

I think it tells us much. When you have a demographic committing around three times their per capita in murders, whether with guns, bats, knives or bricks, that tells me there's a problem with that demographic.

Like men? It's true there are demographics that are disproportionately violent -- blacks, men, southerners, people in their 20s through 40s, the poor, etc. I think it's fine to point that out and to examine what's going wrong with those demographics. But, that's different from trying to invalidate international comparisons by setting up apples-to-oranges comparisons.

 

[Arkady]

I have a theory.

As low income ghetto rats commit more and more crime with stolen guns, more and more law abiding citizens decide to become gun owners(not gun thieves is possession of stolen property).

And what can we do about that?

 

[Arkady]

It's a change in morals

Following that reasoning, there was a big improvement in morals over the last quarter century, including over the course of Obama's presidency. But then, suddenly, there was a reversal in that, and morals got worse in 2015, after all those years of getting better. Only morals didn't get worse across the board. Property crime continued to fall. Murders not involving firearms continued to fall. Robberies not involving firearms continued to fall. It was a very specific change in morals, involving a greater willingness to use guns to commit violent crimes. How does that work?

with some racial agitation added for color

Just to provide some context for that claim, the percentage of murderers who were blacks and Hispanics in 2015 was lower than in 2014. I'm not seeing any direct evidence of a racial element in the 2015 reversal. However, it might be indirect: basically, constant racially-tinged coverage of violence in the media created the illusion that things were getting more dangerous, lots of people went out and bought guns to protect themselves, and then, with more guns in the mix, things really did get more dangerous.

Moral people don't commit crimes. Losers do. Gun laws aren't going to change that.

Obviously, a loser with a gun is a lot more likely to commit certain crimes than a loser without a gun. For example, if some drunk in a bar gets mad because he thinks another patron was hitting on his girl, and the only weapon he's got at hand is a pool stick, you're more likely to get an aggravated assault, or even just a common assault. If, on the other hand, he's got a gun on hand, you're more likely to get a murder or at least an aggravated assault. I think if you compare US crime rates to those in other wealthy nations, you'll see evidence of that "crime escalation" pattern. The US appears to be a bit more criminal, culturally, than other nations, but not enough to explain our vastly greater number of the more severe crimes. As you move up the ranks of the crimes to the most severe ones, you'll find the elevation of US rates grows greater and greater. That suggests that having more "losers" here is only part of the problem. The rest is that our losers tend to cause a lot more harm than their losers. And the ubiquity of guns appears to be much of the reason.

I suspect I would gladly trust you with owning as many AR-15s and semiautomatic pistols that you want. If you announced you had an arsenal, I'd say good for you and not be concerned one bit.

I appreciate that, and I know where you're coming from. I'm not worried about the "right people" having weapons. The problem is how do you keep guns away from the "wrong people". That's made all the more problematic by the fact that the "wrong people" seem the most motivated to get them. For example, statistically, a gun is FAR less socially problematic in the hands of a woman than a man, since women tend to be less prone to criminal violence, yet it's men who tend to be the gun owners. Violent crime rates also tend to be lower among the highly educated, yet the highly educated disproportionately own fewer guns.

 

[Wolfert Webber]

And what can we do about that?

Return to swift and certain capital punishment for violent crimes.

 

[Wolfert Webber]

Following that reasoning, there was a big improvement in morals over the last quarter century, including over the course of Obama's presidency. But then, suddenly, there was a reversal in that, and morals got worse in 2015, after all those years of getting better. Only morals didn't get worse across the board. Property crime continued to fall. Murders not involving firearms continued to fall. Robberies not involving firearms continued to fall. It was a very specific change in morals, involving a greater willingness to use guns to commit violent crimes. How does that work?



Just to provide some context for that claim, the percentage of murderers who were blacks and Hispanics in 2015 was lower than in 2014. I'm not seeing any direct evidence of a racial element in the 2015 reversal. However, it might be indirect: basically, constant racially-tinged coverage of violence in the media created the illusion that things were getting more dangerous, lots of people went out and bought guns to protect themselves, and then, with more guns in the mix, things really did get more dangerous.



Obviously, a loser with a gun is a lot more likely to commit certain crimes than a loser without a gun. For example, if some drunk in a bar gets mad because he thinks another patron was hitting on his girl, and the only weapon he's got at hand is a pool stick, you're more likely to get an aggravated assault, or even just a common assault. If, on the other hand, he's got a gun on hand, you're more likely to get a murder or at least an aggravated assault. I think if you compare US crime rates to those in other wealthy nations, you'll see evidence of that "crime escalation" pattern. The US appears to be a bit more criminal, culturally, than other nations, but not enough to explain our vastly greater number of the more severe crimes. As you move up the ranks of the crimes to the most severe ones, you'll find the elevation of US rates grows greater and greater. That suggests that having more "losers" here is only part of the problem. The rest is that our losers tend to cause a lot more harm than their losers. And the ubiquity of guns appears to be much of the reason.



I appreciate that, and I know where you're coming from. I'm not worried about the "right people" having weapons. The problem is how do you keep guns away from the "wrong people". That's made all the more problematic by the fact that the "wrong people" seem the most motivated to get them. For example, statistically, a gun is FAR less socially problematic in the hands of a woman than a man, since women tend to be less prone to criminal violence, yet it's men who tend to be the gun owners. Violent crime rates also tend to be lower among the highly educated, yet the highly educated disproportionately own fewer guns.

Any fool knows women got other methods to kill you, slow, excruciating, tormenting untraceable methods.

 

[as seen on tv]

I think if police are told not to "stop an frisk", then crimes that WOULD have been committed with knives are now more likely to involve guns.

except in NYC, where subway slashing is apparently rampant.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/01/who-s-slashing-up-new-york-city-s-subways.html