Two RECENT US mass shootings. Where do we go from here?

[oladub]

Detroit 2018 murders 39/100,000

Toronto 2018 murders 3.3/100,000

Why is homicide so high in big Democratic cities?

Chicago 2018 murder rate 23.8/100,000
excellent breakdown https://heyjackass.com

Baltimore 2018 murder rate 55.7/100,000

Washington D.C. 2018 murder rate 18.5/100,000

Canada's 2018 murder rate is 1.8/100,000

U.S. 2018 murder rate is 5.3/100,000 murder rate

State with highest murder rate -
Louisiana 12.4/100,000

State with lowest homicide rate-
New Hampshire 2017 murder rate 1.0/100,000

List of top 30 homicide cities in U.S.
E. St. Louis, MO 2018 homicide rate 101.5/100.000

Based on statistics, maybe we should adopt New Hampshire's policies instead of looking to Washington, D.C. for a solution.

However there is good news. The annul rate of death from firearms in the U.S. has halved from 1993.

In the long term, violent crime in the United States has been in decline since colonial times. The homicide rate has been estimated to be over 30 per 100,000 people in 1700, dropping to under 20 by 1800, and to under 10 by 1900. The United States has the highest rate of civilian gun ownership per capita. According to the CDC, between 1999 and 2014 there have been 185,718 homicides from use of a firearm and 291,571 suicides using a firearm. Despite a significant increase in the sales of firearms since 1994, the US has seen a drop in the annual rate of homicides using a firearm from 7.0 per 100,000 population in 1993 to 3.6 per 100,000.

[Canadian Visitor]

Why is homicide so high in big Democratic cities?

Chicago 2018 murder rate 23.8/100,000
excellent breakdown https://heyjackass.com

Baltimore 2018 murder rate 55.7/100,000

Washington D.C. 2018 murder rate 18.5/100,000

Canada's 2018 murder rate is 1.8/100,000

U.S. 2018 murder rate is 5.3/100,000 murder rate

State with highest murder rate -
Louisiana 12.4/100,000

State with lowest homicide rate-
New Hampshire 2017 murder rate 1.0/100,000

List of top 30 homicide cities in U.S.
E. St. Louis, MO 2018 homicide rate 101.5/100.000
.

This is unusually silly for you.

Homicide associated with guns and gangs is always going to be more concentrated in urban areas, which in the US context are almost all more Democratic.

Comparing NYC to NewHampshire is silly.

You at least need to find a large 2M+ urban centre that tends to vote Republican if you wanted to draw that rather specious comparison.

After all, right in your own list, you show the Canada-wide homicide rate at roughly 1/3 of the U.S. rate.

Canada's most conservative regions are to the political left of anything you'd fine in LA or NYC.

Our Big Cities across the board have homicide rates, this year of 2.2 or less.

Toronto [[2.2), Montreal around 0.9, Vancouver 1.0.

All are subject to Canada's gun laws; and universal healthcare.

[oladub]

This is unusually silly for you.

Homicide associated with guns and gangs is always going to be more concentrated in urban areas, which in the US context are almost all more Democratic.

Yes, they are mostly Democratic. I agree that gangs are most often found in Democratic cities. However, there must be lot of hunters who own guns in New Hampshire.

Comparing NYC to NewHampshire is silly.

Actually, I listed the U.S. next to Canada and Louisiana next to New Hampshire. Both are states.

You at least need to find a large 2M+ urban centre that tends to vote Republican if you wanted to draw that rather specious comparison.

There are some large U.S. cities like Seattle and NYC that have lower homicide rates the the U.S. although Democratic cities usually have higher homicide rates. Of the 33 cities of the largest 100 cities that have a lower homicide rate then the U.S., a higher percentage of Republican cities show up. Maybe Jefferson was right about the evils of urbanization. Of the corresponding 33 of 100 cities with the highest homicide rates, only a few might be Republican or at least not overwhelmingly Democrat. I didn't make up these numbers.

After all, right in your own list, you show the Canada-wide homicide rate at roughly 1/3 of the U.S. rate.
Canada's most conservative regions are to the political left of anything you'd fine in LA or NYC.

So what? I cited Democrat, not liberal.

Our Big Cities across the board have homicide rates, this year of 2.2 or less.

Toronto [[2.2), Montreal around 0.9, Vancouver 1.0.

All are subject to Canada's gun laws; and universal healthcare.

Did you miss the part about "Despite a significant increase in the sales of firearms since 1994, the US has seen a drop in the annual rate of homicides using a firearm from 7.0 per 100,000 population in 1993 to 3.6 per 100,000."? That's remarkable progress. I made it red this time to stand out. We must be doing something right.

I did put the U.S. and Canadian rates next to each other. I wasn't trying to hide them. Congratulations on Canada's better numbers. You can pat yourself on the back. Thank's for caring.

I found this too. "The global rate was 7.6 intentional homicides per 100,000 inhabitants for 2004. UNODC [[United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime) reported a global average intentional homicide rate of 6.2 per 100,000 population for 2012 [[in their report titled "Global Study on Homicide2013").

Canada and most of the developed world are doing better than the U.S which in turn is doing better than the world average. Much of the world's population considers abortion to be homicide. I usually don't. If we included abortion numbers, my guess is that the United States would be in the middle again with a more or less reverse order of nations.

[Canadian Visitor]

Yes, they are mostly Democratic. I agree that gangs are most often found in Democratic cities. However, there must be lot of hunters who own guns in New Hampshire.


Actually, I listed the U.S. next to Canada and Louisiana next to New Hampshire. Both are states.


There are some large U.S. cities like Seattle and NYC that have lower homicide rates the the U.S. although Democratic cities usually have higher homicide rates. Of the 33 cities of the largest 100 cities that have a lower homicide rate then the U.S., a higher percentage of Republican cities show up. Maybe Jefferson was right about the evils of urbanization. Of the corresponding 33 of 100 cities with the highest homicide rates, only a few might be Republican or at least not overwhelmingly Democrat. I didn't make up these numbers.


So what? I cited Democrat, not liberal.



Did you miss the part about "Despite a significant increase in the sales of firearms since 1994, the US has seen a drop in the annual rate of homicides using a firearm from 7.0 per 100,000 population in 1993 to 3.6 per 100,000."? That's remarkable progress. I made it red this time to stand out. We must be doing something right.

I did put the U.S. and Canadian rates next to each other. I wasn't trying to hide them. Congratulations on Canada's better numbers. You can pat yourself on the back. Thank's for caring.

I found this too. "The global rate was 7.6 intentional homicides per 100,000 inhabitants for 2004. UNODC [[United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime) reported a global average intentional homicide rate of 6.2 per 100,000 population for 2012 [[in their report titled "Global Study on Homicide2013").

Canada and most of the developed world are doing better than the U.S which in turn is doing better than the world average. Much of the world's population considers abortion to be homicide. I usually don't. If we included abortion numbers, my guess is that the United States would be in the middle again with a more or less reverse order of nations.

First off, FFS leave abortion out of this.......

Second.....the correct comparison for the United States is the OECD. ie. Developed countries.

The number for the average their is 3.7 homicides per 100,000. That includes some comparatively violent outliers as well. If one considered only Canada, Europe, Aus, NZ, and Japan and South Korea, the number would be materially lower.

****

Second, the US gun homicide rate has declined almost precisely at the same level as the non-gun homicide rate.

Which went form 9 per 100,000 in 1994, to the 5 or so we see today, a decline of slightly more than 40% and less than 50%.

The overall decrease in homicide rates has been seen across the developed world in the last 3 decades and is not unique the the U.S.

There are a variety of reasons for this, ranging from the baby boomers aging out of crime [[the primary group of violent criminals is males age 14-29); as well as other sociological phenomenon.

The distinction of import would be that other countries started with lower rates and went to lower rates still.

That countries with laxer gun laws who tightened them saw corresponding drops in homicides that were better than the average improvement.

[oladub]

First off, FFS leave abortion out of this.......

Second.....the correct comparison for the United States is the OECD. ie. Developed countries.

The number for the average their is 3.7 homicides per 100,000. That includes some comparatively violent outliers as well. If one considered only Canada, Europe, Aus, NZ, and Japan and South Korea, the number would be materially lower.

****

Second, the US gun homicide rate has declined almost precisely at the same level as the non-gun homicide rate.

Which went form 9 per 100,000 in 1994, to the 5 or so we see today, a decline of slightly more than 40% and less than 50%.

The overall decrease in homicide rates has been seen across the developed world in the last 3 decades and is not unique the the U.S.

There are a variety of reasons for this, ranging from the baby boomers aging out of crime [[the primary group of violent criminals is males age 14-29); as well as other sociological phenomenon.

The distinction of import would be that other countries started with lower rates and went to lower rates still.

That countries with laxer gun laws who tightened them saw corresponding drops in homicides that were better than the average improvement.

C.V., Since when did you get to tell others what comparisons and topics are allowed? I'm not blaming your intolerance on Canada but our 1st. Amendment protects us in the U.S..

Hong Kong could be included in your list of developed OECD places that don't allow guns.

I'm glad that gun homicides and other homicides both went down dramatically in the U.S.. It's good that although gun sales have skyrocketed, gun homicides have decreased. One would think from listening to all the anti-gun talking points that gun sales and gun homicides would go hand in hand. Instead, as you pointed out, gun homicides went down with other homicides. Now if homicides would only go down in Democratic cities, U.S. homicide statistics would be closer to that "3.7 homicides per 100,000" OECD average you mentioned.

[Shelby_]

Why is homicide so high in big Democratic cities?

Correlation isn't causation. There are no large cities with Republican majorities, so it's difficult to compare.

There are some safe cities led by Democrats. Denver, and Seattle come to mind.

This article explains better than I can.

[oladub]

Correlation isn't causation. There are no large cities with Republican majorities, so it's difficult to compare.

There are some safe cities led by Democrats. Denver, and Seattle come to mind.

This article explains better than I can.

I read the article. It correlated blacks, unions, and Democratic housing policies with poverty and crime. I did mention Seattle and New York City being exceptions to the tendency for most high homicide cities to be run by Democrats [[post 126). Exceptions do not mean that generalities or norms don't exist. I do think it is partly causation but also think that sets of values go together and people vote and act accordingly. It's sort of which came first the chicken or the egg, high homicide rates or voting Democratic. Maybe its part of the same package.

Also in post 126, is a link to the 100 largest U.S. cities with the largest populations. The smallest city has 217,000 people. The 33 of those 100 cities with the highest and lowest homicide rates each have 3 cities with over 1M people. It is statistically wrong to believe that cities with, for instance, 2 million people tend to wind up in the top tier of homicide rates at least for cities with at least 200,000 people. However, the top one third with the highest homicide rates is almost exclusively Democratic while the lowest third are less Democratic.

Your article also pointed out that their were upscale Democratic cities like San Francisco and Austin with high home prices and lower homicide rates and poorer Democratic cities like St. Louis and Baltimore with cheaper housing and high homicide rates. The other side of the tracks in the Bay area is Oakland. One side of the tracks for the liberal elites and another for poor Democrats. I would ask if that suggests coincidence or intent.

[Shelby_]

I read the article. It correlated blacks, unions, and Democratic housing policies with poverty and crime. I did mention Seattle and New York City being exceptions to the tendency for most high homicide cities to be run by Democrats [[post 126). Exceptions do not mean that generalities or norms don't exist. I do think it is partly causation but also think that sets of values go together and people vote and act accordingly. It's sort of which came first the chicken or the egg, high homicide rates or voting Democratic. Maybe its part of the same package.

Also in post 126, is a link to the 100 largest U.S. cities with the largest populations. The smallest city has 217,000 people. The 33 of those 100 cities with the highest and lowest homicide rates each have 3 cities with over 1M people. It is statistically wrong to believe that cities with, for instance, 2 million people tend to wind up in the top tier of homicide rates at least for cities with at least 200,000 people. However, the top one third with the highest homicide rates is almost exclusively Democratic while the lowest third are less Democratic.

Your article also pointed out that their were upscale Democratic cities like San Francisco and Austin with high home prices and lower homicide rates and poorer Democratic cities like St. Louis and Baltimore with cheaper housing and high homicide rates. The other side of the tracks in the Bay area is Oakland. One side of the tracks for the liberal elites and another for poor Democrats. I would ask if that suggests coincidence or intent.

You're cherry picking.
You fail to mention the article also notes the poorest county in the country is 98 percent white and overwhelmingly Republican.

You're also misrepresenting what it says.
It says: Crime correlates with variables such as race and economic status. Relative to their share of the population, African Americans commit more violent crimes and suffer more violent crimes.

Violent crime in Detroit has decreased significantly over the past 25 years. Do you credit Democratic leadership?

Like Socrates [[paraphrased by Plato), the only thing I know, is I know nothing. In other words, the vastness of what I do know, is minuscule when compared to what I do not know. One thing I know is true: complex questions rarely have simple answers. Anyone saying different has an agenda. Building a wall won't stop illegal immigration. More restrictive gun laws won't end gun violence. Relaxed gun laws and more people carrying won't make us safer and electing Republicans won't make America's cities safer.

[oladub]

You're cherry picking.
You fail to mention the article also notes the poorest county in the country is 98 percent white and overwhelmingly Republican.

I failed to mention counties in part because I was responding to your post #133 in which you only mentioned cities.

You're also misrepresenting what it says.
It says: Crime correlates with variables such as race and economic status. Relative to their share of the population, African Americans commit more violent crimes and suffer more violent crimes.

I didn't ignore that. I wrote "I read the article. It correlated blacks...with poverty and crime." You must have missed that.

Violent crime in Detroit has decreased significantly over the past 25 years. Do you credit Democratic leadership?

I addressed homicides not crime. 1. 'Counties' and 'cities' are different. 2. 'Homicides' are a subset of 'crime'. 3. From another conversation, 'Immigrants' and 'illegal non-citizens' mean different things.

Detroit's population decrease from 1,012,000 25 years ago in 1993 to 673,640 in 2017. I would blame much of that population decline on Democrats although, in my opinion, Mayors Bing and Duggan have started turning Detroit around. In 1993, there were 579 murders in Detroit. In 2017, there were 267 murders in Detroit. The lower number of homicides has much to do with fewer people living in Detroit in 2017. That works out to a 39.6/100,000 murder rate in Detroit in 2017 and a 56.765/100,000 murder rate in Detroit in 1993. The ratio of Detroit's 2017 rate over its 1993 rate is [[39.6/56.765=.698). Both national homicide rates are much lower than Detroit's. The National homicide rate in 1993 was 9.5/100,000. The national homicide rate in 2017 was 5.3/100,000. The national 2017 rate over its 1993 rate is [[5.3/9.5=.558) In other words, the national rate of homicides decreased at a faster rate than the Detroit rate during the 25 years you mentioned.

[Canadian Visitor]

How about we scatch all that Oladub.

Why don't we instead look at what the single strongest correlation is involving crime?

Income inequality.

https://www.economist.com/graphic-de...lity-and-crime

The U.S. has more of that, than any other developed nation, and more crime. Not a coincidence.

The addition of allowing far more violent weapons in the hands are far more people further increases the seriousness of the initial problem.

[Jimaz]

... Why don't we instead look at what the single strongest correlation is involving crime?

Income inequality....

Thank you for stating the obvious. That it doesn't get discussed much reveals how uncomfortable that subject is to U.S. citizens.

No one seems to be disputing that there has been a significant increase in the number of mass shooting incidents recently. But why?

Although Trump may have emboldened some of these "berserkers," I don't think he started them on their path of destruction. It's the Great Recession. My theory is that they're reacting to to the injustice of a system that encourages "too big to fail" banks to sabotage the economy, leaving an underclass to pick up the pieces.

Then that underclass is provided convenient scapegoats to blame — who had no means whatsoever to cause their distress.

There's a whole lot of social engineering going on in this country and that too will be blamed on scapegoats.

[oladub]

How about we scatch all that Oladub.

The noun "scatch" means "A kind of bit for bridles." and it isn't a verb.

Why don't we instead look at what the single strongest correlation is involving crime?

Income inequality.

https://www.economist.com/graphic-de...lity-and-crime

The U.S. has more of that, than any other developed nation, and more crime. Not a coincidence.

I had been commenting on homicide rates not broader crime rates.

I read the Economist article. Western Europe did best. Africa and Latin America did the worst. This might also be a measure of cultures in that different cultures produce different outcomes. North America includes 129M Mexicans so I'm not sure how the United States would show up by itself. Western Europe has less income inequality than the U.S. but that can't be proven by the Economist graphs. Without Mexico, the U.S. would place better than North America did. If we just looked at the United States, California has the most income inequality. California votes for Democrats. In California, rich Democrats dominate the Silicon Valley and San Francisco. Poor blacks live in Oakland. Poor Mexicans and Mexican-Americans live in the Central Valley. Before California became American, rich people lived in haciendas while campesinos lived and worked on plantations. History is repeating itself; perhaps more by design than coincidence.

The addition of allowing far more violent weapons in the hands are far more people further increases the seriousness of the initial problem.

California's having the most income inequality of any state works against the Economist's thesis. "Allowing far more violent weapons in the hands are far more people" would intuitively seem to increase crime yet U.S. crime has significantly gone down since 1994 while the number of guns sold has significantly gone up. Those "far more violent weapons" include planes used on 9/11. The highest crime rates occur in big cities run by Democrats.

But hurrah you managed to get another dig in against the United States.