A steep drop in crime, but do you feel safer?

[ellisonz]

Los Angeles police block off the 3rd Street tunnel after a man was shot there in October last year. (Gina Ferazzi / Los Angeles Times)

L.A. had fewer crimes last year than it did in 1957 — the mayor calls the numbers 'mind-boggling' — but the statistics may not be equally reassuring to everyone.
By Sandy Banks
January 7, 2012

A newsroom has its own way of tracking a city's trend toward diminishing crime.

Twenty years ago, a reporter tallying crime stats for our newspaper's weekly blotter might sift through dozens of killings on a single weekend. There were more than 1,000 homicides a year. Last year, there were fewer than 300 homicides — and many weekends with no killings.

Ten years ago, reporters working the streets kept mental lists of neighborhoods considered too dangerous to visit alone. Now, no neighborhood is off-limits. That sense of ambient criminal menace is gone.

----------

The reasons are complicated and ripe for debate: better policing and more community involvement; fewer drugs and fuller prisons; an explosion in new technology; and the fading profile of violent gangs.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-banks-20120107,0,6414204.column

[mvccd1000]

1. Another reason not mentioned...

... is similar to the reason we saw such a lower ratio of killed:wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan - medical care is leaps and bounds better now than it was decades ago.

That's in addition to the reasons mentioned in the OP - not instead of them.

While I have my own doubts of the "deterrent value" of guns (if the thought of breaking the law, going to jail, getting beat up, losing everything, getting shot, etc., doesn't deter them, why would the thought of 1 in 1,000 civilians carrying a gun deter them?), it's clear that the proliferation of guns has not INCREASED crime.

[Atypical Liberal]

2. But crime is down, not just deaths from crime.

Not only are deaths from crimes down, but overall crime is down, including property crime.

[mvccd1000]

19. You're right, of course.

I guess my reply was more in response to the sentences: "There were more than 1,000 homicides a year. Last year, there were fewer than 300 homicides." That's over a 70% drop in crime if those numbers were to track with the overall crime numbers - obviously unrealistic. I credited some of that reduction to better medical technology (some of it probably coming from doctors trained in the middle east, where the decreases in mortality from previously unsurvivable wounds are even more pronounced).

[Atypical Liberal]

3. Sure.

Crime is continuing a decades-long decline, while the number of firearms in circulation is at record highs.

[slackmaster]

4. The probability of becoming a victim of a violent crime is so small compared to things like vehicle

...accidents, the drop in crime really makes no difference to me.

[ileus]

5. fewer drugs? Where?

[ellisonz]

6. I think it's a reference to the crack and heroin epidemics. n/t

[AtheistCrusader]

7. Yes, I feel safer.

Despite the media trying ever so hard to whip up fear with 'it bleeds it leads' sales driven news selection.

[spin]

8. Actually yes, I do feel safer. However that doesn't mean that...

I plan on selling any of my firearms or stopping my practice of carrying concealed.

I enjoy target shooting and most of my collection is dedicated to that purpose. I do own several handguns and a shotgun that are better suited for concealed carry or for home defense. While I realize that the chances of finding myself in a situation where I might have to use a weapon for legitimate self defense is becoming less and less likely, the possibility still exists.

There is also my own personal belief that you can jinx yourself by discontinuing measures that you had taken to insure yourself from having a really bad day. For example, I always had the habit of getting extended warranties on expensive purchases. None ever came in handy. I decided to not purchase a warranty on a large LCD TV. Shortly after the initial manufacturer's warranty ran out the TV died. It cost me a small fortune to get it fixed and after the repair warranty expired it went belly up again.

I'm a firm believer in Murphy's law.

While I believe that better and more proactive policing coupled with the advent of ubiquitous cell phones and cameras are the most likely causes of the decrease in crime, I also find it interesting that this reduction occurred during the same time frame that "shall issue" concealed carry was becoming more common across the U.S. and the sales of firearms were skyrocketing.

[rl6214]

9. I was walking in Downtown El Paso, TX today, 50 yards from the border with

Juarez, Mexico the murder capital of the world. I don't feel any safer nor do I feel any more in danger. I was carrying my 9mm like I do 99% of the time. My wife asked me what would happen if some sort of shooting were to break out. I told her we would seek cover and wait for it to be over or to defend ourselves if need be. While my house is less than two miles from the Mexico border, this is the closest I have been in 25 years.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

10. for personal reasons, no. although I have heard a rumor that my attackers have been killed. -

I have not verified it to be true.

[ileus]

11. I hope so....nothing like being able to live in peace.

[Simo 1939_1940]

12. No. Nor do I feel less safe.

Just based on crime stats. Murder is way down in the county where I live, but unchanged in the city where I live - which has the highest violent crime in the county, relatively low though it is.

I think once you have been visited by violence, everything changes. You lose the ability to tell yourself that violence will be inflicted upon "the other guy/gal".

[Hoyt]

13. Yes. Kudos to those in LA who venture out unarmed and free.

[rrneck]

14. I venture out unarmed and free all the time.

Never carry. Never need to.

[Hoyt]

15. Not many like you here, unfortunately.

[friendly_iconoclast]

16. What's unfortunate about it? Like the OP says, crime is down.

Which indicates the "threat" posed by those carrying legally is a bugbear of your own creation.

[Hoyt]

18. But carriers deserve no credit. Might be down more without so many guns.

[friendly_iconoclast]

20. As long as they don't cause a rise, no one should have any problem with it.

[Hoyt]

21. Disagree. People routinely carrying guns is not good for society, short- or long-term.

[friendly_iconoclast]

22. Nor was drinking ethanol, smoking cannabis, listening to jazz,

short hair on women, long hair on men, listening to rock and roll, reading comic books, protesting the war in Vietnam, fighting against segregation, et cetera, et cetera.....

[Hoyt]

25. Carrying guns in public definitely don't fit into that list.

[friendly_iconoclast]

27. Of course it does. All moralizing prohibitionism is alike at heart.

Only the object of it varies.

[ellisonz]

30. So we should permit hate groups to carry arms in public?

[friendly_iconoclast]

31. Are you plumping for political tests, or some sort of "niceness" override?

By the way, the ACLU and Thurgood Marshall disagreed with you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_America_v._Village_of_Skokie

As Barney Frank once remarked: "Even assholes have civil rights"

[ellisonz]

32. Gun ownership isn't an absolute civil right.

Service in the militia isn't an absolute civil right either. They are subject to the will of the people...and I'd go as far as calling for a Constitutional Amendment declaring the right of the government to regulate firearm ownership.

Not going to have this debate with you...

If you want to go on record defending the right of Ku Klux Klan members to arm themselves that is your right, but I will not indulge its promotion with a response.

[X_Digger]

33. I'll go on record..

Until someone does something* that makes them ineligible to purchase or possess firearms, I'll support them doing so.

That applies to David Duke, Jane Hamsher, Pat Buchannan, Rachel Maddow, and everyone in between.

I feel the same way about the right protected by the second amendment as I do about the right protected by the first.

"I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend unto death your right to say it." -- misattributed to Voltaire





* That includes all the terms of the 1968 GCA and amendments (lautenberg, etc)- conviction of, or indictment for a felony, dishonorable discharge from the armed services, having been adjudicated mentally unfit, served with a protective order for domestic violence, an illegal user or addict to controlled substances, etc.

[ellisonz]

34. If Voltaire didn't say that...

Who did?

Also, again, Ninth Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment09/

[X_Digger]

36. One of his biographers attributes it to him, or uses it as a summation of his position.

There's also a purported letter saying something similar- ("Monsieur, je déteste ce que vous écrivez, mais je donnerai ma vie pour que vous puissiez continuer à écrire&quot "Monsieur, I detest what you have written, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write."

Now, how does the ninth amendment justify abrogating a person's rights without due process? If we're throwing around amendments..

[div class='excerpt']No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

You see, all the restrictions set out in the 1968 GCA follow a judgement / adjudication / tribunal -- due process.

[ellisonz]

37. Interesting...

However, Voltaire also wrote "Il faut cultiver notre jardin" - which presumably includes the pulling of weeds.

I'm not denying due process, I am stating though that if an extremist group's rights are to constructed as to "deny or disparage" other basic rights, then I fail to see how due process would deny an such appeal to tranquility and welfare.

There's a difference two between the right to assembly and the right to keep and bear arms in this sense, no one's life is denied by simple assembly.

[X_Digger]

40. If they deny others' rights, then they can be charged under USC § 1983 / 1985

And once convicted of a felony, they fall afoul of the GCA 68.

See: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/1983.shtml and http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/usc_sec_42_00001985----000-.html

But until that point? All rights are inherent.

Belonging to an organization, or holding certain beliefs- no matter how detestable- is not in and of itself denying others' rights.

[div class='excerpt']I fail to see how due process would deny an such appeal to tranquility and welfare.

What due process would be involved?!? What judge / tribunal / administrative hearing would a person have faced when deprived of their right to keep and bear arms for being part of some organization? What is the appeals process?!? There is no due process with such a scheme.

[ellisonz]

42. Well California's law on gang injunctions stands...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_injunction

So maybe you "pro-death spewers in dangerous peoples hands folks" can go after the State of California...

[X_Digger]

43. Did you notice how CA has to tiptoe around it?

[div class='excerpt']Since 1999, to prevent rulings against injunctions in the name of constitutionality, city attorneys have carefully worded their filings

What were you saying about bypassing the spirit of the law elsewhere? The same thing that you were bemoaning others doing, you're endorsing now?

And ACLU California already has a new challenge in the works.

[ellisonz]

44. Honestly, I forsook the ACLU after they supported Citizens United...

You're equating gang injunctions with the firearms industry slithering around the AWB...cry me a river.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

46. I'm still waiting...

...for you to explain how adhering to the law itself is somehow slithering around it.

[ellisonz]

49. I'm still waiting for you to acknowledge people can have legitimate disagreements...

[We_Have_A_Problem]

56. I always have

Now, feel free to answer the direct question.

[friendly_iconoclast]

35. You'd best get busy if you want to amend the Constitution. It's not easy...

I will give you snaps for candor, however. Most Prohis dissemble or just pretend their hearing failed when discussion turns to amending the Constitution.

One thing, however- your statement "They are subject to the will of the people..." Is that not "seriously justifying mob logic"?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11723908#post103

[ellisonz]

38. That's justifying the democratic process and the soveriegnty of the people through government.

Also, if you wish to call me prohi, I shall not hesitate to describe your positions as those of a gun nut. Neither is accurate...

[SteveW]

57. Unfortunately for most of us, they have that right...

if a state's law permits open-carry. You cannot restrict any right of anybody because of their status as a "hate group." In fact, it would be unconstitutional to so restrict any group. See the First Amendment.

[Simo 1939_1940]

23. You say this constantly, yet provide no evidence.

Do you actually think that nobody notices this?

[Hoyt]

24. This is a political forum, not a science forum.

You guys would want us to wait until there are so many bad outcomes that even the flat-earthers have to agree that more guns, particularly in public, contribute to bad results -- direct and indirect. Of course, by the time some of you will publicly admit the problem, there will be hundreds of millions more guns to deal with.

For people who cannot walk out of their house without a gun or two strapped to their bodies, I doubt there will ever be enough evidence.

[PavePusher]

26. There are decades of data to draw conclusions from.

Go for it.

[Simo 1939_1940]

28. "This is a political forum, not a science forum."

So this is your justification for spreading falsehoods?

Pathetic.

But again ---- thanks for helping to destroy your own "cause". Too bad that Democratic pols continue to pay the price to placate people like you.

[Hoyt]

29. What falsehood?

[Simo 1939_1940]

39. SNAP SNAP SNAP!!!

WAKE UP HOYT!!

(your post #21)

[ManiacJoe]

41. You don't need to post "enough evidence".

Any evidence will do.

[rrneck]

17. Well

if I could jump through a rip in the fabric of time and rescue them I'd share your opinion.

[E6-B]

45. Emergency city council meeting

My brother works for a Los Angeles county city. They had an emergency meeting at the new year. Seems there is a sudden spike in home invasions. They are arresting some of the criminals that were releases early.

[burf]

47. Who could have not seen that coming? n/t

[ellisonz]

48. Los Angeles county city?

[Remmah2]

50. So now you think home invasions are funny? nt

nt

[ellisonz]

52. No I think the poster is full of "pious baloney"

We're not talking about the City and County of Honolulu - there is the City of Los Angeles and Los Angeles County - they are different - there is no Los Angeles county city

[E6-B]

53. Laughter

Do you sometimes find yourself in a room full of people only to find your the only one laughing?

[ellisonz]

54. I'd have to ask the Los Angeles county city about that...

...maybe I can find the answer at Townhall.com

[burf]

51. Sure, why not?

Try the google map. Something like Lancaster or Palmdale maybe.

[ellisonz]

55. ...

http://www.cityoflancasterca.org/
http://www.cityofpalmdale.org/
http://www.lacounty.gov/wps/portal/lac