NYC: Lessons Learned From Fewer Guns
New York City is on track to have fewer than 500 homicides this year, by far the lowest number in a 12-month period since reliable Police Department statistics became available in 1963.
But within the city’s official crime statistics is a figure that may be even more striking: so far, with roughly half the killings analyzed, only 35 were found to be committed by strangers, a microscopic statistic in a city of more than 8.2 million.
The major lesson learned here is one that Gary Kleck knew back in 1994, when he said in US News & World Report (15 Aug 94):
“There is little or no need for a gun for self-protection because there’s so little risk of crime. People don’t believe it, but it’s true. You just can’t convince most Americans they’re not at serious risk.”
Gunloons live in a world of their design; a world where mortal danger lurks behind every corner. In reality, the greatest risk factor involves your own relationships; your chances of being assaulted by a total stranger are very small–the real risk is a domestic altercation that spirals out of control.
Of course, one needs to understand gunloons, for the most part, are frightened and confused people.
“In reality, the greatest risk factor involves your own relationships; your chances of being assaulted by a total stranger are very small–the real risk is a domestic altercation that spirals out of control.”
The majority died in disputes with acquaintances, rival drug crew members or spouses and family.
Are those the acquaintances I should be afraid of?
FYI, the brady campaign is number one when it comes to scaremongering, remember their bullet-dodge city speeches? The screams of panic over 50caliber airplane shootings that never happened? The workplaces and campuses that were going to get shot up by CCW-permitees? Them scary terrorists and Mexican cops shopping at gun shows?
What “gun lobby scaremongering” have you addressed recently? the Y2K scare from back in ‘99!
Comment by Michael H — November 25, 2007 @ 8:27 am
You’re the one that tries to belittle others for the age of their cites, but you use a 14 year old quote from Kleck?
Maybe you missed the fact that he became a huge critic of gun control and now believes it’s largely useless. To quote Kleck himself:
“[Subsequent research] has caused me to move beyond even the skeptic position. I now believe that the best currently available evidence, imperfect though it is (and must always be), indicates that general gun availability has no measurable net positive effect on rates of homicide, suicide, robbery, assault, rape, or burglary in the U[nited] S[tates]. This is not the same as saying gun availability has no effects on violence–it has many effects on the likelihood of attack, injury, death, and crime completion, but these effects work in both violence-increasing and violence-decreasing directions, with the effects largely canceling out. For example, when aggressors have guns, they are (1) less likely to physically attack their victims, (2) less likely to injure the victim given an attack, but (3) more likely to kill the victim, given an injury. Further, when victims have guns, it is less likely aggressors will attack or injure them and less likely they will lose property in a robbery. At the aggregate level, in both the best available time series and cross-sectional studies, the overall net effect of gun availability on total rates of violence is not significantly different from zero.”
Funny, I’ve been the victim of gun crime already at the hands of a stranger. Maybe just maybe what’s true in Manhattan isn’t true in Baltimore? Hmmmm?
There are lot of people I’m acquainted with because of my community activism who want to do me in. What Jadepenis the Lying Censor is misrepresenting here is that just because crime in NYC isn’t often perpetrated by complete strangers, not everyone who isn’t a complete stranger is a domestic partner or friend.
Pretty sad you’re trying to buttress your unsubstantiated claim with Kleck, a well respected criminologist who wholeheartedly disagrees with you on gun control.
In any event, this is a real loser of an argument for gun controllers–even if it is true that you don’t have much to worry about from strangers…then why worry about whether I have a gun in the first place?!?!?
Comment by Sebastian-PGP — November 25, 2007 @ 8:38 am
S the LC™: I’m aware Kleck is the author or co-author of the many DGU ’studies’ which have all been debunked. Kleck’s problem, here, is that he offered this quote after his famous 2.5M DGU claim. Moreover, he offered this quote at a time when crime rates were declining; today, the crime rate is comparable to 1994’s.
……………
Again, your chances of being a victim are based on your own relationships and/or your own stupidity. The chances of you being a random victim are akin to hitting the lottery.
Comment by Administrator — November 25, 2007 @ 10:23 am
Kleck’s work is extremely well respected in criminology circles; your simple say so that his body of work is “debunked” lacks credibility (wow, imagine that, you don’t provide any sources or links for your claim…shocking!). Even the most conservative estimates of DGU by antigunners show that it far outnumbers illegal homicides.
As for your analysis of the data, firstly, you’re oversimplifying the reasons people get murdered. Secondly, you’re assuming that what prevails in NYC prevails elsewhere (unsubstantiated assumption at best). Thirdly, defense from murder isn’t the only reason to need to defend yourself. Fourth, why the implicit assumption that people who get murdered somehow brought it upon themselves? Defending yourself from domestic violence is an extremely valid reason for self defense.
In other words, even if it were true that random murder was as rare as you’d have us believe (a claim which you’ve offered no substantiation for beyond misquoting the NYC study), that doesn’t mean people don’t have a valid need for self defense–the non-random need to defend yourself is just as valid and righteous, perhaps moreso. My need to defend myself from the drug dealers I’m helping Baltimore Police corral is actually far more pressing than the need to defend myself from Joe Mugger. A female victim of domestic violence and rape has far more reason to need to defend herself than Joe Mugger’s random victim.
Comment by Sebastian-PGP — November 25, 2007 @ 10:45 am
And you still fail to answer the most poignant question: if you don’t think random crime is a concern, why worry about me having a gun? Even less worrisome than random crime is violence from CCW permit holders.
Comment by Sebastian-PGP — November 25, 2007 @ 10:51 am
Well, the need for strict gun control exists because of the very real and plausible risk that some deranged psychopath might go on a killing spree, and anybody who wants to be armed in case such a rare and unlikely event produces itself is obviously a paranoid nutjob who cannot be trusted with a firearm.
queue: Alice Coopers “Tales from the inside”
Comment by Michael H — November 25, 2007 @ 1:50 pm
Heh. In the immortal words of Fat Tony…it’s funny, because it’s true.
The whole argument about DGU is stupid anyway–even if you could establish that the antigunners are right that DGU isn’t as common as criminal gun use…so what? DGU isn’t the only legit, valid, law abiding reason that we own and train with firearms. Lawful gun use far, far outweighs unlawful gun use.
If you read the actual article that Jadeweenie the Lying Censor links to, you’ll see that they don’t try to suggest that what they’re finding in NYC should in any way be extrapolated to other areas. Keep in mind that a large percentage of NYC’s population lives in the Manhattan area, which has the highest cop to civilian ratio of anywhere in the world. It’s the wealthiest people in the world living on the most expensive real estate you can find on the planet, patrolled more heavily than any other municipality you can imagine.
Back Manhattan out of NYC’s stats, and the picture gets less rosy. And it hardly means that what goes on in NYC governs Philly or Baltimore or Richmond or Atlanta.
Comment by Sebastian-PGP — November 25, 2007 @ 2:38 pm
S the LC™ lives up to his ‘liar’ title. First, NYC is not just Manhattan. NYC is comprised of 5 boroughs–Manhattan, Queens, Brooklyn, the Bronx and Staten Island. As far as population goes–Manhattan ranks third, behind Brooklyn and Queens. In fact, Manhattan’s population is approximately equal to the Bronx’s.
……
WRT police ratios, S the LC™ lies again. NYPD has about 35,000 sworn officers for 8.2M residents. They are divided among the five boroughs according to population; thus, Queens and Brooklyn has the same patrolman/citizen ration as Staten Island or Manhattan.
……………
Obviously, S the LC™ has never been to NYC if he believes everyone there is wealthy. In reality, NYC doesn’t make the top ten in the US in terms of median income and property values.
….
Why must S the LC™ lie? Perhaps it’s the trauma or the way he was raised.
Comment by Administrator — November 25, 2007 @ 5:32 pm
Who’s the liar here?
I never said that NYC is “just Manhattan”. In fact, I was pointing out that it’s quite the opposite. That’s one lie for you.
Next lie for you: the implication that I said anything at all about the way that NYC’s cops are spread about the city. I was simply pointing out that they have one of the highest ratios of cops to people to be found in the free world (twice that of the LAPD, for instance). Again, the only liar here is Jadeweenie. Manhattan being part of NYC, it shares NYC’s cop distribution ratio.
Lie #3–I never said everyone in NYC is wealthy. But I did say that the people who can afford to live in Manhattan are, on average, just about the wealthiest people going in the US. Lie number four for you–you’re talking about NYC as a whole, while I was talking about Manhattan.
I wonder what traumas and parental fuckups have lead you to be such a liar.
Comment by Sebastian-PGP — November 25, 2007 @ 8:29 pm
Sorry, S the LC™, you were caught lying.
……….
You stated a “large percentage” of NYC’s population resided in Manhattan. In truth, Manhattan’s population is about 18% of NYC’s population. A lie by any definition.
,,,,,,,,,,,,
WRT ratios, LA has 1 officer per 291 residents. NYC has 1 per 234 citizens. S the LC™, I’m beginning to believe you enjoy being exposed as a liar.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Again, you state people living in Manhattan are among the wealthiest. According to Forbes, NYC isn’t in the top ten US cities. You’re getting used.
Comment by Administrator — November 25, 2007 @ 9:07 pm
In retrospect, I can see how that does read in a misleading fashion–but the point stands. NYC has more cops than virtually any other major American city (neck and neck with Chicago); add in the fact that Manhattians are uber wealthy living on super duper expensive real estate, and have tons of cops roaming amongst them, no wonder they’ve got low crime stats.
Back out the uber wealthy Manhattians, and the rest of NYC isn’t such a rosy picture at all.
In any event Jadeloser is still the liar here, misrepresenting my position since his own is indefensible.
Comment by Sebastian-PGP — November 25, 2007 @ 9:18 pm
How the FUCK is that a lie? The 19% of NYC’s population that lives in Manhattan is about 1/5th. That’s a substantial portion. Who’s the liar?
Next lie for Jadedouche–check the LAPD Wikipedia page, the LAPD have only 1 officer for every 426 residents. You lying douchebag.
The per capita income in Manhattan is DOUBLE that of the rest of the city.
Once again, you’re the liar.
Speaking of Wiki, check out this quote:
“Manhattan is one of the highest-income places in the United States with a population greater than 1 million. Based on IRS data for the 2004 tax year, New York County (Manhattan) had the highest average federal income tax liability per return in the country. Average tax liability was $25,875, representing 20.0% of Adjusted Gross Income.[95] As of 2002, Manhattan had the highest per capita income of any county in the country.[96]”
Once again, you’re lying by misrepresenting what I’m saying–I’m talking about Manhattan, and you keep talking about NYC as a whole. Liar.
Comment by Sebastian-PGP — November 25, 2007 @ 9:27 pm
Ahhh, note how S the LC™ is moving the goalposts. First, it was that NYC had the largest ratio of cops to residents–now it’s that NYC has the most cops. Well, given the fact NYC has the largest population, it stands to reason they’d also have the largest police dept.
‘”’
Additionally, another lie of S the LC™’s has come to light. “It’s the wealthiest people in the world living on the most expensive real estate you can find on the planet.” Actually, the most expensive real estate on the planet is in Tokyo; NYC comes in tenth place behind cities like London, Seoul, Geneva, Hong Kong, etc.
‘”'’
As I’ve said before, Seb the LC™ seems to derive sexual pleasure from lying.
Comment by Administrator — November 25, 2007 @ 9:27 pm
What? I never said anything about total number of cops. I pointed out that their cop/citizen ratio was amongst the highest you can find anywhere. You’re lying again.
Next, you’re lying about the rest estate thing, by AGAIN talking about NYC as a whole while I’m discussing MANHATTAN specifically.
You really are a disgusting human being. At least Sarah Brady can blather on about saving lives; your only motivation is to be an asshole on the Internet.
Comment by Sebastian-PGP — November 25, 2007 @ 9:55 pm
http://deadpresident.blogspot.com/2007/08/most-expensive-real-estate-in-world.html
NYC is actually 3rd, and if you look at Manhattan alone, it’s probably higher than that.
Comment by Sebastian-PGP — November 25, 2007 @ 10:07 pm
Dipshit just did a search for “most expensive cities to live in” to get that list (really, do a yahoo search for “most expensive cities” and the first couple links rank NYC as number 10). He’s dead wrong–Tokyo isn’t number one, Hong Kong is. In any event, I’m talking about MANHATTAN, not New York as a whole.
Comment by Sebastian-PGP — November 25, 2007 @ 10:09 pm
S the LC™ insists on cherry-picking. Either that or S the LC™ really enjoys being exposed as a liar.
….
Something is very wrong with S the LC™–I suspect it’s the trauma.
Comment by Administrator — November 25, 2007 @ 10:15 pm
Oh he’s cherry picking is he?
Who started this entire thing by giving one single example of a low crime city, and blaming that on gun laws?
Comment by Michael H — November 26, 2007 @ 7:38 am
I didn’t cherry pick anything–I simply pointed out that you were clearly trying to misrepresent what I was saying, and I called you on it. You can’t defend your position or your actions, and so you engage in nonsensical blathering.
Comment by Sebastian-PGP — November 26, 2007 @ 10:23 am
No Where other than his header does it say anything about there being fewer guns?
The Assault rate is up, perhaps as Lt Col Dave Grossman says trauma units save a lot of lifes
Comment by JDFAR — November 26, 2007 @ 3:16 pm
JDFAR–quit confusing our illustrious host with facts. He’s still trying to figure out how to quit eating paste.
Comment by Sebastian-PGP — November 26, 2007 @ 3:58 pm
C’mon, JDFAR, the schools in the frozen tundra aren’t that bad. Think. NYCity has restrictive gun laws. Most murders in the US are committed with guns.
Comment by Administrator — November 26, 2007 @ 6:34 pm
Yeah, cause cities with restrictive gun laws always have low murder rates. Which is why DC and Baltimore are such safe cities.
Ooops.
Comment by Sebastian-PGP — November 26, 2007 @ 9:41 pm
Jade,
You must have missed the bus,
With todays trauma unit’s if a victim is transported quick enough, they have right at an 80% survival rate, if shot. If you really want to see where crime is at look at the felnoy assault rate. Why not really read what you post to, before you put your keyboard in gear.
Comment by JDFAR — November 27, 2007 @ 8:17 am
Yeh, I wrote a small bit on that in one of my posts about the UK.
The increase of gunshot injuries has led to a sharp drop in fatalities as paramedics became more and more experienced (and properly equipped) to handle the victims.
All of that aside, NY really is a safe city in comparison to others of its size.
But that’s a recent fact, unlike it’s gun control.
So once again, you’ve made an observations that’s meaningless due to a lack of causality.
Comment by Michael H — November 27, 2007 @ 10:34 am
JDFAR: I weep for the schools in northern MN if you are a product of them; they certainly were better when I attended ‘em.
You seem to be suggesting homicides are no big deal–assaults are really bother you. Well, if you haad to make a choice, I’d wager I know which you’d choose…
Comment by Administrator — November 27, 2007 @ 5:57 pm
Typical Jadeloser chicanery–ignoring the larger point (which he can’t counter) to lob a personal insult instead.
The Sullivan Act is nearly a century old, but NYC has gone from safe to dangerous and back again in that period. NYC is safe DESPITE gun control, not because of it.
But troll idiots don’t generally want to acknowledge that crime ebbs and flows because of socioeconomic factors and not gun control.
Comment by Sebastian-PGP — November 27, 2007 @ 10:56 pm