The elephant in the room: CRIME

[Gpwrangler]

I just read that Baltimore had 9 murders over the Memorial Day weekend and nearly 30 shootings, while Chicago had 12 murders and 44 shootings. Of course, guns are not a problem in America.

The guns owned by people I know just stay quietly in their cases and don't cause any problems. Now tell me again why the ones in Baltimore and Chicago are such a problem.

[SyGolden48236]

Guns are not a problem. Criminals with guns are a problem. Criminals can also kill with knives, baseball bats, gasoline and a match, cars, trucks, lead pipes, bows and arrows and all kinds of other things can be used to kill. Perhaps these things should be banned too, no?

Another thing to bear in mind: The likelihood of any of the guns used in the 27 Baltimore shootings or the 44 Chicago shootings being legally registered and not stolen is very low. The likelihood of any of the perpetrators of the shootings not having prior criminal records is similarly very low as well.

Discuss.

• 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

[Gpwrangler]

Guns are not a problem. Criminals with guns are a problem. Criminals can also kill with knives, baseball bats, gasoline and a match, cars, trucks, lead pipes, bows and arrows and all kinds of other things can be used to kill. Perhaps these things should be banned too, no?

Another thing to bear in mind: The likelihood of any of the guns used in the 27 Baltimore shootings or the 44 Chicago shootings being legally registered and not stolen is very low. The likelihood of any of the perpetrators of the shootings not having prior criminal records is similarly very low as well.

Discuss.

• 
  

Libs will never get it.

[Vic01]

I really didn't think anyone was denying that Detroit's murder rate is very high. You are the one who indicated that zero murders was the "civilized" level, which is silly given any civilization in history, and which prompted the response that two murders isn't a lot of murders. But that doesn't mean that there isn't a large gap between what would be a reasonable expectation of violence in America and the actual level of violence in large parts of Detroit, and I don't think anyone was saying it did mean that. Whether that gap is really large down by the east riverfront is more questionable.

I recall the original post said "within one mile of this property 38 crimes were reported in the past two months... and two homicides!"

All the "crime happens everywhere" BS aside [[crime may happen, murder/killing does not), it's a good bet that there are some square miles of Detroit that have not had two people killed in the any two month period.

[Bham1982]

Guns are not a problem. Criminals with guns are a problem. Criminals can also kill with knives, baseball bats, gasoline and a match, cars, trucks, lead pipes, bows and arrows and all kinds of other things can be used to kill. Perhaps these things should be banned too, no?

Another thing to bear in mind: The likelihood of any of the guns used in the 27 Baltimore shootings or the 44 Chicago shootings being legally registered and not stolen is very low. The likelihood of any of the perpetrators of the shootings not having prior criminal records is similarly very low as well.

Guns are a huge problem and do contribute to the high homicide rate in the U.S. Yeah, people could still beat each other with sticks and bats, but obviously if there were fewer guns in circulation there would be far fewer murders in the U.S.

And it's irrelevant if criminals are legally using guns; the fact is that guns are easily obtained in the U.S.. meaning they can be acquired cheap and easy by criminals. Tougher gun laws make it tougher on the criminals. In NYC the tough gun legislation makes black market guns 10x as expensive as in gun-crazy states, because no one wants to be caught transporting guns from the anything-goes South. It isn't coincidental that the city with the toughest gun laws has the lowest homicide rate of any major U.S. city.

[Dan Wesson]

Since there is no shortage of facts and figures bandied about...

I wonder just how many firearms there are in this country and how many have been used in a fatality. Should we exlude the Peace Officers?

Just a wild guess. .0000001%? Maybe less?


I have a feeling that Mr. Bham has no idea just how many LAWS are on the books now that concern the legal ownership of firearms. He wants MORE.

Very very simplistic.

[Bham1982]

Since there is no shortage of facts and figures bandied about...

I wonder just how many firearms there are in this country and how many have been used in a fatality. Should we exlude the Peace Officers?

Just a wild guess. .0000001%? Maybe less?

Your guess sounds absurd. There are like 100 million guns in public circulation, tens of thousands of annual gun-related deaths, and hundreds of thousands of annual gun-related crimes so obviously the % used in crimes is much higher.

I don't understand the argument anyways. Should we not regulate nukes if we're pretty sure that 99.99999% won't accidentally detonate? Should we not monitor convicted child predators if we can prove most won't harm children?

I have a feeling that Mr. Bham has no idea just how many LAWS are on the books now that concern the legal ownership of firearms. He wants MORE.

There are almost no serious laws on the books regarding guns. Of course I want more. More important, I want laws with teeth. Mandatory prison terms for illegal gun possession. Strict ownership requirements for handguns, including mandatory training. These laws work, and they drive up the cost to illegal gun usage. You can get a illegal gun in Europe, but it will cost you serious money and you are taking more serious risks. Only professional criminals need apply.

In 99% of the world, they have gun regulation, and they have little gun-related crime. In the U.S. we want our "freedumb" to enter schools, churches and hospitals with military-grade weaponry. We think the 2nd Amendment should be interpreted as "any American, regardless of mental or physical fitness, should be able to assemble an unregulated arsenal of weaponry while visiting WalMart for pork rinds".

Very very simplistic.

Sure, the entire world is "very very simplistic" but the weekend Rambos in the U.S. are all geniuses. I really don't think our founding fathers had Idiocracy in mind when they established the 2nd Amendment.

[Dan Wesson]

So, you do know they can't readily enforce the the laws they have now. What do you propose for the more laws you want. I see you want bigger jails. As if we don't already. This country of the free has the largest prison population in the world.

All you want is more of the same and it ain't worked before what is going to make it work now?

By the way you are making arguments from a emotional level and damned be the facts.

Over and out. Oh! Bask in the knowledge that your vote will be nullified by mine. Now there is a win-win situation.

[313WX]

Libs will never get it.

Name calling and broadbrushing doesn't help you in getting your point across.

I own guns and have a CPL, yet I'm politically liberal...

[Gpwrangler]

Name calling and broadbrushing doesn't help you in getting your point across.

I own guns and have a CPL, yet I'm politically liberal...

Not trying to convince anyone or make any point. No one has told me yet why my friends' guns have caused no issue but we have a "gun problem".

200+ traffic deaths so far in Michigan. Guess we have a "car problem too". Meh.

[p1acebo]

Not trying to convince anyone or make any point. No one has told me yet why my friends' guns have caused no issue but we have a "gun problem".

Haven't posted here in a while but I do want to point out that this logic is flawed. You can't project your own personal experience [[n=1), and apply it to the population as a whole, stating that just because your friends who own guns have no issues means that anyone that has access to a gun is in the same situation.

That is like saying you have an uncle who smokes and never developed lung cancer is the rule and not the exception, and use it as a justification to continue smoking.

Now I don't think the "gun issue" is one that can simply be resolved by more laws, it is multi-factorial, which includes a cultural aspect [[USA tends to have a more accepting culture of violence than a lot of our developed country counterparts). I would venture to say that the cultural issue is a bigger one, however a much harder problem to approach. I am not against guns, but I do think it is ignorant to think just because my neighbor [[or friend) owns a gun legally and has the mental capacity to use it properly, that everyone who owns a gun/has access to a gun fits the same mold.

[Gpwrangler]

Haven't posted here in a while but I do want to point out that this logic is flawed. You can't project your own personal experience [[n=1), and apply it to the population as a whole, stating that just because your friends who own guns have no issues means that anyone that has access to a gun is in the same situation.

That is like saying you have an uncle who smokes and never developed lung cancer is the rule and not the exception, and use it as a justification to continue smoking.

Now I don't think the "gun issue" is one that can simply be resolved by more laws, it is multi-factorial, which includes a cultural aspect [[USA tends to have a more accepting culture of violence than a lot of our developed country counterparts). I would venture to say that the cultural issue is a bigger one, however a much harder problem to approach. I am not against guns, but I do think it is ignorant to think just because my neighbor [[or friend) owns a gun legally and has the mental capacity to use it properly, that everyone who owns a gun/has access to a gun fits the same mold.

The smoking analogy does not apply. You guys can hash this out and figure out where the problem is. I don't have an issue with legal ownership. None of my friends do either.

Let me me know when you work it out. I'm good.

[p1acebo]

The smoking analogy does not apply. You guys can hash this out and figure out where the problem is. I don't have an issue with legal ownership. None of my friends do either.

Let me me know when you work it out. I'm good.

It does apply, research has shown that smoking significantly increases your risk of developing lung cancer [[along with heart disease, peripheral vascular disease, etc). Same could be said about the research with gun access, where if you have access to a gun you have a significantly higher rate of morbidity and mortality [[I can provide references if needed). To simply say everything looks good from your backyard and applying it to the general population, again, is a flawed logic.

Now if you are saying that you don't care about people dying from gun related violence and your only concern is those you know with guns have not been victims, then your statement would make more sense.

And as for figuring out the problem, I wish I knew, if I did I would be rich.

[Wesley Mouch]

Your guess sounds absurd. There are like 100 million guns in public circulation, tens of thousands of annual gun-related deaths, and hundreds of thousands of annual gun-related crimes so obviously the % used in crimes is much higher.
...snip...

Actual gun deaths in US is around 11,000 per year. Turns out its about the same as death by car.

If there are 100 million guns, then the correct rate is about 1/100 % or .0001, assuming that each gun is only used for a single murder on average. That might not be a good assumption.

[Gpwrangler]

It does apply, research has shown that smoking significantly increases your risk of developing lung cancer [[along with heart disease, peripheral vascular disease, etc). Same could be said about the research with gun access, where if you have access to a gun you have a significantly higher rate of morbidity and mortality [[I can provide references if needed). To simply say everything looks good from your backyard and applying it to the general population, again, is a flawed logic.

Now if you are saying that you don't care about people dying from gun related violence and your only concern is those you know with guns have not been victims, then your statement would make more sense.

And as for figuring out the problem, I wish I knew, if I did I would be rich.

misquoting and twisting words is a weak liberal tactic. Have at it. Read my original post. I'm done with the topic.

[Johnnny5]

Another thing to consider is that there are more and more firearms in circulation every year. Even so, the number of firearm related murders in the U.S has plummeted to the lowest level since 1969! [[When there were 100 million fewer Americans) It doesn't make much sense to argue that the increased number of firearms is leading to more gun related deaths when the number of gun related deaths has been steadily decreasing as the number of firearms has skyrocketed.

[p1acebo]

misquoting and twisting words is a weak liberal tactic. Have at it. Read my original post. I'm done with the topic.

There is no tactic and I am not a liberal [[Also for the record it was a direct quote, so I am not sure how it could be "misqouting").

My initial post was just pointing out that comparing a small sample size [[i.e. only your experiences with your friends) and applying it to the general population doesn't work in the fashion for which you presented it as [[especially without controlling for confounding factors). If you don't understand that then no worries, just figured I would through my two cents in.

In addition, I don't care about your original post, or even the topic at large. I was just trying to make a point about your comment. If you wanted to refute what I was saying with evidence-based reasoning then be my guest, otherwise try not to take a few posts on Detroit Yes so hard!

[Dan Wesson]

Actual gun deaths in US is around 11,000 per year. Turns out its about the same as death by car.

If there are 100 million guns, then the correct rate is about 1/100 % or .0001, assuming that each gun is only used for a single murder on average. That might not be a good assumption.

Wesley do me a favor and plug 300 million US firearms into your equation.

[mwilbert]

Actual gun deaths in US is around 11,000 per year. Turns out its about the same as death by car.

This number is wrong. There are currently about 33,000 gun deaths/year in the US, and the number has been rising more-or-less in tandem with population. The 11,000 number is the number of gun homicides. The remainder are accidents or [[mostly) suicides, which is why it is reasonable to think that having a lot of guns around is a public health problem, akin to smoking. But considering the number of people who think that unrestricted gun possession is an important right, and the fact that with 300 million guns around it would be basically impossible to get the number of guns down to a sensible level in my lifetime, I have a hard time thinking that doing anything about this would be worth the effort.

On the other hand, in all likelihood, self-driving cars will knock the car-related fatality level down by at least 90%, and then perhaps people will have to find another argument for why this level of gun-related deaths is acceptable.

[erikd]

The problem is you don't seem to be getting it. Why are you even bringing up WSU "free policing", if it is indeed "free"? If Midtown residents want to work out a deal to use WSU police, more power to them. The conversation seems to be about crime in the rest of the City and not just in the Utopian part. In fact, I don't see where anyone even suggested taxpayer funds are being diverted to WSU police. DPD IS being used as security guards @ sporting events and even as crossing guards in Midtown while crime is still out of control in other parts of the City where other Detroiters live, without subsidies. It gets a little old reading about how wonderful life is in efin' Midtown.

I'm still trying to understand your point. It seems that you find it unfair that more money being spent on policing the area around the WSU campus, via the funding for the WSUPD from the university. It is true that the WSUPD, like many other universities across the country, provides additional patrols on and around the campus, but I fail to see why that is a problem. Should universities be banned from policing their campuses and surrounding areas? Should universities with police patrols have their state funding cut? Should students who attend such universities be disqualified for student loans? If it is a problem, then what should be done about it?

I understand the frustration of inadequate police patrols and response in the city. We don't have university police in my east side neighborhood either, but I'm not bitter about my fellow Detroiters who do get that benefit in the area around WSU.

[Dan Wesson]

On the other hand, in all likelihood, self-driving cars will knock the car-related fatality level down by at least 90%, and then perhaps people will have to find another argument for why this level of gun-related deaths is acceptable.

Hmmmm....

[emu steve]

I'm still trying to understand your point. It seems that you find it unfair that more money being spent on policing the area around the WSU campus, via the funding for the WSUPD from the university. It is true that the WSUPD, like many other universities across the country, provides additional patrols on and around the campus, but I fail to see why that is a problem. Should universities be banned from policing their campuses and surrounding areas? Should universities with police patrols have their state funding cut? Should students who attend such universities be disqualified for student loans? If it is a problem, then what should be done about it?

I understand the frustration of inadequate police patrols and response in the city. We don't have university police in my east side neighborhood either, but I'm not bitter about my fellow Detroiters who do get that benefit in the area around WSU.

Indeed case study: EMU.

After the 2013 murder of an EMU football player, off campus, EMU partnered with the city [[Ypsilanti) to increase [[EMU) patrols in areas with off campus housing.

Kudos to both WSU and EMU. "Do what you got to do..."

We've had this discussion on sports forums, but many college campus are in areas with some crime problems. And, college students, being mostly young, tend not to be as careful as older adults when it comes to things like being in areas where they are at risk.

[EastsideAl]

Wow, for one brief shining moment I agree with Bham1982.

[EastsideAl]

Oh, and as for the original poster, way back when, I actually have a cousin who lived on that last block of Lakewood for many years [[he was transferred to NYC for work a couple of years ago, but still owns the house). That area down by the river has actually become better in the last few years, and there are far fewer problems than there were in the past [[and there never were all that many, it's generally been pretty cool down there). Most people I know down there in that area think it's a very nice place to live.

However, the neighborhood does become a little worse as you go back up towards Jefferson. And the area on the north side of Jefferson, which I believe is included in your crime stat zone, is a different kettle of fish entirely.

[Wesley Mouch]

This number is wrong. There are currently about 33,000 gun deaths/year in the US, and the number has been rising more-or-less in tandem with population. The 11,000 number is the number of gun homicides. The remainder are accidents or [[mostly) suicides, which is why it is reasonable to think that having a lot of guns around is a public health problem, akin to smoking. But considering the number of people who think that unrestricted gun possession is an important right, and the fact that with 300 million guns around it would be basically impossible to get the number of guns down to a sensible level in my lifetime, I have a hard time thinking that doing anything about this would be worth the effort.

On the other hand, in all likelihood, self-driving cars will knock the car-related fatality level down by at least 90%, and then perhaps people will have to find another argument for why this level of gun-related deaths is acceptable.

You are correct. About 10k murders, and 20k suicides -- in rough numbers.

You're also right that its unacceptable.

The debate is about whether banning guns is the right solution. I don't think it is.

I also agree with you on the epidemiology. It is like a virus. Its is a public health issue. We don't ban sex because of aids [[like banning guns for violence) -- we work on other solutions like licensing, training, incarceration, peer pressure.

Rather than the sex analogy, you might consider the cigarette analogy. We can ban the cigarettes, but the real results have been because of public peer pressure.

If you prefer banning, go ban books please.