Violent crime in America at lowest levels in decades...

[Hiphoplives4eva]

Freakonomics has a better theory to explain the decline in violence, and when you consider where the clusters of violence occur currently, the Freakonomics theory stacks up rather nicely.

Man, shut the hell up with that racist Freakanomics bullshyt. Just because that racist garbage jives with your anti-black mentality doesn't make it right. Try again idiot.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

OP is an idiot. He takes a story that is good news (not to mention common knowledge to everyone in HL) and manages to fukk it up by adding retarded political spin that makes no sense. Could it be a combination of factors such as decline in the drug trade, lead removal, innovations in law enforcement, mixed income housing, and increased abortion? No it's because of more guns, even though there isn't more gun ownership and I just pulled that out my ass. And oh yeah, libruls suck.

 

[Robbie3000]

Going by the headlines in the liberal media you would have thunk that were were in a veritable crime wave! Who would have imagined that more guns on the streets actually results in decreased violent crimes and fatalities, despite a depressed economy?

Violent Crime, Including Gun Related Crimes Way Down? How Could this Be? « Dvorak News Blog

Most violent news is reported by the local media which is hardly a bastion of liberalism. The local media in major cities have been good since the 70s by taking advantage of white fears and resentment of blacks by portraying American cities as war zones despite the reality.

 

[theworldismine13]

What people are really avoiding is that the reason for the low crime rate is probably the high incarceration rate

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

What people are really avoiding is that the reason for the low crime rate is probably the high incarceration rate

Lol...so you posit a unsupported premise then just announce people are avoiding it?

Why didn't crime drop until about the late 90's if locking people up for petty drug charges was the answer?

 

[The Real]

What people are really avoiding is that the reason for the low crime rate is probably the high incarceration rate

That's not really how prisons work. One of the things they don't do effectively is deter crime. I think the research has been pretty solid on this front. In a place like NY, for example, something like increased police power and presence might be a real factor, but not incarceration itself.

Consider that any prison that is either private or privatizes its labor actually needs a higher incarceration rate in order to maximize profits, which means they need crime, or at least its perception. Deterrance isn't on their radar. The rest of them are just "last-resort" (now first resort, really) containment facilities without any real strategy for combating crime.

 

[Robbie3000]

What people are really avoiding is that the reason for the low crime rate is probably the high incarceration rate

No one is smoking crack anymore. Thus the trade is not attractive given the costs. If the crack trade was still valuable, people would still take chances despite incarceration rates.

It's human nature.

 

[theworldismine13]

Lol...so you posit a unsupported premise then just announce people are avoiding it?

Why didn't crime drop until about the late 90's if locking people up for petty drug charges was the answer?

there isnt one sole reason for the drop in crime, and incarcerating isnt the only answer, but incarceration rates is something that some people like to avoid for the drop in crime AFTER the crack epidemic was over

That's not really how prisons work. One of the things they don't do effectively is deter crime. I think the research has been pretty solid on this front. In a place like NY, for example, something like increased police power and presence might be a real factor, but not incarceration itself.

Consider that any prison that is either private or privatizes its labor actually needs a higher incarceration rate in order to maximize profits, which means they need crime, or at least its perception. Deterrance isn't on their radar. The rest of them are just "last-resort" (now first resort, really) containment facilities without any real strategy for combating crime.

so you're saying stop and frisk works?

No one is smoking crack anymore. Thus the trade is not attractive given the costs. If the crack trade was still valuable, people would still take chances despite incarceration rates.

It's human nature.

the crime rate has continued to go down to levels BEFORE the crack era, that is what has to be explained, crack going doing is only a partial explanation

 

[Brown_Pride]

Most violent news is reported by the local media which is hardly a bastion of liberalism. The local media in major cities have been good since the 70s by taking advantage of white fears and resentment of blacks by portraying American cities as war zones despite the reality.

in all fairness the 90's had a "warzone" type feel...not really but it was bad (as clearly shown by the graph).


at any rate ... what ever happened to blaming rap music?

Me i attribute the reduced violence in the general trend of tightening pants and the feminization of the male population. Can bust guns when you can't hide them in your skinny jeans.

 

[Brown_Pride]

there isnt one sole reason for the drop in crime, and incarcerating isnt the only answer, but incarceration rates is something that some people like to avoid for the drop in crime AFTER the crack epidemic was over




so you're saying stop and frisk works?



the crime rate has continued to go down to levels BEFORE the crack era, that is what has to be explained, crack going doing is only a partial explanation

don't discount education on the subject either, or the fact that people are more versed in what crack does now. back in the day it was still "new" in a lot of regards.

prisons+war on drugs are a self sustaining problem they exist in tandem to perpetuate eachother with no real benefit to society.

 

[MeachTheMonster]

Poverty is down, drug use is down, education is up.

It's no surprise that crime would be down as well. Most crimes are commited for economic reasons, if you have less economically depressed people you have less crime.

 

[Hiphoplives4eva]

OP is an idiot. He takes a story that is good news (not to mention common knowledge to everyone in HL) and manages to fukk it up by adding retarded political spin that makes no sense. Could it be a combination of factors such as decline in the drug trade, lead removal, innovations in law enforcement, mixed income housing, and increased abortion? No it's because of more guns, even though there isn't more gun ownership and I just pulled that out my ass. And oh yeah, libruls suck.

Ok so I'm an idiot for simply reposting an article from the WASHINGTON POST? GTFOH, that's a respectable source all across the globe. I'm simply providing evidence that goes directly against the BULLshyt LIBERAL narrative that clowns like your self constantly like to profess as fact. Concepts such as "too many guns is the cause of ever increasing violence", when the fact of the matter is overall violence has gone down substantially and whilst gun ownership is becoming more and more mainstream. Its moron's like yourself that follow the liberal habit of pushing for knee-jerk responses for legislating morality that usually result in taking away of rights of ordinary American citizens who have done no wrong, all in the name of making the world "safer".

So if you feel there is more gun ownership, yet overall violence is down, why the fukk are liberals pushing so hard to regulate guns? Is it because some white woman is crying on TV about her "perfect" angel getting murked in the streets? Well for that one white woman I can find over 100 black women in the hood who have lost their children to gun violence, but for some reason when that black woman's child was killed in a gun battle in the streets of Chicago white liberals didn't appear to give a damn.

 

[Spatial Paradox]

so you're saying stop and frisk works?

Not necessarily (and I'm tempted to flat out say no, but there's already a thread for that and I don't have all of the stats in front of me at the moment). Anyway, simply having an increased police presence in an area might be enough to make some folks think twice before committing a violent crime.

 

[The Real]

so you're saying stop and frisk works?

No, because as the stats show, it's extremely inefficient and they catch very few people with illegal items like guns. What Giuliani did in the 90s was to militarize the police force and then expand their power to unprecedented levels. Naturally, combined with increasing gentrification and the fragmentation of Black neighborhoods, rigid, authoritarian, more brutal police activity has a certain effect on crime. A more tyrannical, fascist policy would probably lower the crime rate even more.

 

[theworldismine13]

No, because as the stats show, it's extremely inefficient and they catch very few people with illegal items like guns. What Giuliani did in the 90s was to militarize the police force and then expand their power to unprecedented levels. Naturally, combined with increasing gentrification and the fragmentation of Black neighborhoods, rigid, authoritarian, more brutal police activity has a certain effect on crime. A more tyrannical, fascist policy would probably lower the crime rate even more.

lol, inefficient and ineffective are 2 different words, in essence you are saying that stop and frisk and Giuliani tactics worked, it was inefficient but effective

dont worry, admitting reality isnt the same as co-signing