General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe most important criminological trend of our time is completely ignored
Note that that isn't "rate per 100,000". That is absolute incidents, in the context of a rising population. (The chart I found only goes to 2004; the trend has been the same since then: basically flat levels in absolute numbers.) This is a large drop in the homicide rate overall, headlined by an essentially fantastic drop in homicides by handguns.
Our homicide rate has fallen by over 50% in the last 20 years, led by a drop in homicides by handgun. When you show it by all causes and controlled for population size, it's quite dramatic:
Look at that for a second. We're living in a time period with a crime rate as low as the mythic post-war golden years. There's a saying that a liberal is someone who wants to work in the 1950s and a conservative is someone who wants to live in the 1950s; well we've gotten our murder rate back down to that level and yet people are acting like it's been increasing steadily. But the murder rate in 2012 was lower than in 1912, and only 5 years in the 20th century had a lower rate.
Now, maybe people are still trying to kill each other, but trauma medicine is much better so more people live. Certainly there's some of that, but that's only a component: look at the aggravated assault rate (this goes to 2004; the trend has continued).
So, not just success at killing has decreased dramatically over the past 20 years: intention of killing has too. Improved medicine is at best a part of the drop.
The problem is, no advocate of anything likes this inconvenient fact very much, because everybody needs a crisis to keep the donations and petition signatures coming in.
People who support greater restrictions on firearms don't like this, because if there's no rain of blood in the streets, why should we restrict firearms?
People who oppose greater restrictions on firearms also don't like this, because if there's no rain of blood in the streets, why do people need guns to defend themselves?
In fact, pretty much everybody with some sort of ax to grind or ox to save from goring is doing everything possible to keep this fact quiet. More money for prisons? Why, during such a safe time? Reform prisons? Why, when we're clearly getting the results we want right now?
There's a strong conservative (with a small "c" streak in most Americans along the lines of "if it isn't broke, don't fix it", and when you look at these numbers it's very difficult to honestly conclude that when it comes to violent crime, something has been very not broke for the past 20 years, and that seems like the wrong time to introduce a massive change of any sort.
EDIT: we now have a couple of posts bringing in the Freakonomics-style arguments (demographics, reproductive choice, lead abatement, etc.). Yes, there are probably a lot of potential explanations, very few of which have anything to do with "crime" policy, which is my point.
BainsBane
(53,001 posts)the number one factor affecting violent crime in society is the percentage of the male population from roughly 16-28. I'd like to see a correlation between that and the homicide rate.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Which tied the drop to Roe v. Wade. There's since been some pushback against that (access to abortion doesn't seem to lower total fertility rates, just space out when the children are born), but certainly demographic factors would seem to be a huge part of this. I was born in 1976, which was the nadir of American fertility (my cohort is the smallest since WWII in absolute numbers), so there weren't very many teenage boys my age 20 years ago, and the crime rate crashed. This also has a spillover effect since there weren't very many of us to "teach" the millenials how to commit crimes.
BainsBane
(53,001 posts)We do have a population decline. Yet the US still leads the First World in homicide rates. The only country near that category that compares is Russia. We even have a higher homicide rate than the West Bank. That I find amazing.
Benton D Struckcheon
(2,347 posts)where the drop in the population of males that age partially explains it, better policing partially explains it, fewer "mentors" now partially explains it, and the latter two have a persistent effect even when the population of males the right age rises again, because the police still have things under control due to having learned a few things over the past 20 years.
But everyone is actually well aware our crime rate has collapsed. This is especially true in NYC, where pre and post Giuliani NYC is like night and day. Better policing, which actually started under his predecessor, Dinkins, was aggressively rolled out to the entire city after conspicuous success on 42nd Street, and the city has been a lot safer since. A large part of the stats you cite is directly due to NYC having become so safe over the past two decades.
It's not a good argument against gun control though. NYC as I have noted is where things have really improved tremendously, and NYC has very strict gun laws. NJ is reasonably strict as well; we have universal background checks here (I know because I once did a friend a favor by signing off on his competence to own a gun; you need two people as I recall to testify to your being sane on the form). So is NY state, so NYC benefits from its immediate surroundings being decent on gun control, which makes its own laws more effective.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)The drop has happened during a time when gun laws have been essentially treading water (and concealed carry has been expanding rapidly), and on the other side it's during a time when single parenthood and divorce have continued rising.
Also, DC had a very similar drop in the same time period, as did every other city I've had any contact with.
Benton D Struckcheon
(2,347 posts)but I imagine they're as strict as those of any other big city. In NYC you may have heard of the controversial stop and frisk search thing, which I certainly don't advocate, but those searches are specifically done to find guns. The message in NYC is very strongly anti-gun in every way, and very few people are approved for concealed carry there; unless you're law enforcement you're not allowed. Treading water is not an accurate description of what's been going on there as far as enforcement of their gun laws at all.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)DC was the poster child for gun control not working: it was completely illegal for a civilian to own a handgun. But you could buy them at the drug markets.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Lemme guess, you're going to find some right-wing blogger with a degree from Liberty University to "refute" the scientific evidence.
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199112053252305
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Come on, even you can do better than that
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Your aversion to legitimate social science on this topic is peculiar. Do you really think everyone with credentials who has studied the topic professionally is wrong, and a few right-wing bloggers have it all figured out?
enlightenment
(8,830 posts)one would think you could do better than provide 9 year old charts - and then loose comments (and a loose graph) extrapolating the intervening years.
It's hard to believe that no one has done any statistical analysis since 2004.
WCGreen
(45,558 posts)offered these two reasons why violent crime started to drop in the late 90's and continues to drop even more.
First, birth control and abortions have stopped a lot of unwanted pregnancies.
Second, the removal of lead from the environment.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Though I think one of them has come around in the past 6 years.
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)It's the most obvious thing in the world. When we are overcrowded, we freak out. And there are plenty of people who don't handle frustration, fear and anger vey
Recursion
(56,582 posts)So why would the crime rates plummet (not just drop, plummet) by that theory?
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)also, I thought there was a U.S. population peak in the early '90's. The huge rise in your graph correlates with that peak from 1990 to 2000.
http://nationalatlas.gov/articles/people/a_popchange.html
1990 to 2000 Population Increase Was Largest in American History
AREA Population Change, 1990 - 2000
April 1, 1990 April 1, 2000 Number %
United States 248,709,873 281,421,906 32,712,033 13.2
Region
Northeast 50,809,229 53,594,378 2,785,149 5.5
Midwest 59,668,632 64,392,776 4,724,144 7.9
South 85,445,930 100,236,820 14,790,890 17.3
West 52,786,082 63,197,932 10,411,850 19.7
<<more at link>>
kudzu22
(1,273 posts)In order to have the drop in homicides explained by population, you'd have to show negative growth after 1995 or so. As in population decline, not just decline in rate of growth.
Archae
(46,260 posts)In 1976 there were only ABC, CBS. NBC and PBS news on TV, plus we had newspapers, newsmagazines, etc.
Now?
We can just about see crime as it happens, on the 24/7 news outlets.
And the old meme still applies.
"If it bleeds, it leads."
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)muriel_volestrangler
(101,146 posts)eg this, from just this week:
1. Get the lead out.
2. Double, triple, quadruple the alcohol tax.
3. Foster care for young delinquents.
4. Better police tactics
5. After-school sports.
6. Preschool.
7. Target gangs.
8. Take away already illegal guns.
9. Reach out to parents.
10. Mentors and teachers can help.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/04/22/lead-abatement-alcohol-taxes-and-10-other-ways-to-reduce-the-crime-rate-without-annoying-the-nra/
Recursion
(56,582 posts)I can't think of one.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,146 posts)http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/02/12/remarks-president-state-union-address
DanTex
(20,709 posts)It's gone up and down, and yet we still have around 8X more gun violence than other first world democracies.
Time to give up on the "guns don't kill people" theory, and join the rest of the civilized world, where gun laws are much tighter and homicide rates are much lower.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)And no mention of the 10,000+ gun suicides per year.
Other countries with real gun control laws don't seem to have this problem.
But then you're a person labors under the belief that America is an anarchic dystopia akin to the post-Apocalyptic outback in Mad Max, where people need to heavily arm themselves to defend against the morlocks who crave human flesh.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)ROTFL.
Yes, when you ignore all the countries with strict gun laws and high homicide rates (Brazil, Mexico, Russia, Indonesia...) then yes, it does look like gun laws are what have solved this problem.
Pelican
(1,156 posts)Bravo...
baldguy
(36,649 posts)Oh, yeah - THEY ARE NOT SIMILAR! They're not similar socially. They're not similar economically. They're not similar demographically. What you're doing is cherry-picking your data - which is a form of lying. What you're doing is dishonest.
When we look at Western industrialized democracies - ones that ARE similar to the US - we get a contradiction to your NRA-fueled RW weirdo dogma:
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/crime-stats/crime-statistics/period-ending-march-2012/trends-in-crime--a-short-story.html#tab-How-do-trends-in-violent-crime-compare-with-other-countries-
These other countries all have the same problems with drug abuse, crushing poverty, high crime rates, disaffected & disenfranchised minorities. A few have even had actual civil warfare in living memory. They also have real national gun control laws that work.
The US does not. Therefore our murder rate three times higher that our closest neighbor. The difference is the guns.
redqueen
(115,096 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)And Mexico isn't facing a massive drug war.
And Brazil and Indonesia have been industrialized for decades and don't have a truly massive underclass.
You've made sure to select countries that aren't like the US. If you'd like, I'll happily select 3rd world nations where people can't afford guns, and show that our murder rate is much higher. The comparison will be just as valid as yours.
We should measure the US against advanced western-style democracies, because the US is an advanced western democracy. So compare the homicide rate in the US to Canada, Western Europe, Australia, Japan, South Korea, and so on. That comparison isn't flattering.
You'd also have to deal with the lovely example of Australia. They had loose gun laws. They tightened their gun laws. Gun violence plummeted, and the government isn't even rounding up people for forced labor camps!
Recursion
(56,582 posts)It's hilarious to me how many of my fellow liberals can put together the fact that we live in a 3rd world kleptocracy when the question is voting laws, or taxes, or health care, or the safety net, or anything political, but somehow fail to make that connection when it comes to guns.
If you understood at all what was happening in Russia, you'd realize that statement is moronic.
If you understood at all what was happening in Mexico, you'd realize that other statement is moronic.
tabasco
(22,974 posts)According to the National Crime Victimization Survey, 467,321 persons were victims of a crime committed with a firearm in 2011. In the same year, data collected by the FBI show that firearms were used in 68 percent of murders, 41 percent of robbery offenses and 21 percent of aggravated assaults nationwide.
Most homicides in the United States are committed with firearms, especially handguns.
http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violence/
spanone
(135,627 posts)Last edited Sun Apr 28, 2013, 01:16 PM - Edit history (1)
hack89
(39,171 posts)you cannot walk into a gun store and buy a machine gun.
You are right about the background checks.
spanone
(135,627 posts)NickB79
(19,109 posts)Very interesting.