NYC annual murder tally at record low
Source: Bloomberg News
CHICAGO (MarketWatch) -- New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg said Friday that the city is on track to tally its fewest murders on record in 2012 while shootings have hit an 18-year nadir. There have been 414 slayings in New York so far this year, the lowest number since records began being kept in 1963. There were 548 homicides that year. The high-water mark came in 1990 with 2,245. "The fact that the safest big city in America is safer than ever is a testament to the hard work and determination of the men and women who put their lives on the line for us every day - and it also reflects our commitment to doing everything possible to stop gun violence," Bloomberg said.
Read more: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/nyc-annual-murder-tally-at-record-low-2012-12-28
Bloomberg + gun control = lower gun murder rate
yup
Jamaal510
(10,893 posts)all you have to do is point to NYC.
hack89
(39,171 posts)their gun control laws are just as strong.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)you can peddle the propaganda here, but if you lie, we will call you on it.
hack89
(39,171 posts)CreekDog
(46,192 posts)and I didn't lie. you did.
hack89
(39,171 posts)and you know it.
And we can add other cities to the list if you want to play silly ass games. How about Detroit?
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)can you name a medicine or antibiotic that works 100 percent of the time?
can you name a good medicine or treatment that works 80 percent of the time?
and Los Angeles' homicide rate is ranked 41st among American cities. 41st rank for the 2nd largest American city.
hack89
(39,171 posts)between NY and those other cities?
Kelly rightly attributes his success to aggressive law-enforcement tactics, including stop-and-frisk, the routine searching of people the police suspect are carrying illegal weapons or other contraband.
Chicago and Detroit dont perform stop-and-frisks; Philadelphia used the tactic, but its hands have been cuffed by the courts this year to predictable results.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/editorials/fruits_of_stop_and_frisk_rxQSaUSfCuIdlM5zY9rUjP
http://tv.msnbc.com/2012/12/14/stop-and-frisk-racist-and-ineffective/
So we have a mayor who calls the police his "personal army" and a police commissioner who implements racial profiling.
And this is your model for the rest of the country? OK
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)a dishonest tactic from a poster who has used dishonesty in this very thread to attempt to convince others of points that can't be supported by the truth.
hack89
(39,171 posts)to get similar results.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)and a daytime population far in excess of its full time population --much like NYC.
but that's just one example.
hack89
(39,171 posts)Are all large cities in states with strict gun control laws. All have high murder rates.
As for California - Oakland which is right across the bay from SF has a murder rate over 20 with exactly the same gun control laws.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)is that also your standard for medicine? does effective medicine work 100% of the time?
Your list of cities with strict gun control:
Boston murder rate: 11.3 (distance to loose laws in New Hampshire: 28 miles)
Chicago murder rate: 15.9 (distance to loose laws in Indiana: 14 miles)
Detroit murder rate: 34.3 (Michigan has lax gun laws, you are being dishonest again)
Cincinnati murder rate: 20.5 (Ohio has lax gun laws, you are being dishonest again)
Newark murder rate: 32.5
Washington DC murder rate: 21.9 (distance to loose gun laws in Virginia: 1 Washington Metro stop away)
And now...
Okay, you bring up California, and its strict gun laws, but you only want to talk about two cities (one of them, Los Angeles, undermines your case by the way):
let's look the murder rate for all CA cities above 250,000 in population (and rank among those cities):
Anaheim 2.1 (tied for 5th best of 74)
San Jose 2.1 (tied for 5th best of 74)
San Diego 2.2 (7th best of 74)
Riverside 3.0 (8th best of 74)
Sacramento 4.2 (16th best of 74)
San Francisco 5.9 (25th best of 74)
Long Beach 6.9 (28th best of 74)
Los Angeles 7.6 (33rd best of 74)
=Median US City murder rate: 7.8=
Santa Ana 8.2 (39th best of 74)
Bakersfield 9.9 (50th best of 74)
=Average US City murder rate: 11.2=
Fresno 14.4 (44th best of 74)
Stockton 16.8 (60th best of 74)
Oakland 22.0 (69th best of 74)
So what you're saying is that you only want to count Oakland and Los Angeles to prove your point? What you don't want us to do is consider all the cities, including San Francisco, San Jose, etc. I assume you don't take us for complete idiots and you'd like to convince us --how do you expect that to work out what with your lies and laughable premises here?
hack89
(39,171 posts)but completely irrelevant when we have high murder rates?
It is almost as if there is no correlation between gun laws and murder rates. As it it was a complex social issue that transcends the simplistic anti-gun memes you like to.peddle.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)there is a correlation between murder rates, gun deaths and the strictness of gun laws combined with the level of gun ownership.
hack89
(39,171 posts)isn't the difference between safe and unsafe CA cities the level of criminal gang activity?
Because they all have identical gun laws.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)in this thread, you lied about those gun laws.
are you going to deal with that or does everyone have to assume that every argument you make here is equally as unreliable and dishonest?
at what point do you actually start harming the fight against gun control because poster after poster becomes convinced that your posts are so dishonest that they will assume the opposite of what you are saying or arguing is true?
now what of your dishonest posts here! i keep asking and you keep pretending they didn't happen?
what is next? the self-delete?
hack89
(39,171 posts)Bay Boy
(1,689 posts)Michigan in particular.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)But that's comparing states with almost no restrictions to states with comprehensive and strong ones.
Hack89 even conceded PA doesnt have strict gun laws after saying they did.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)laws. That helps us here get rid of guns. The other large cities dont have that. Philadelphia is smack in the middle of a state with lax gun control laws, DC is is affected by an influx of guns from Virginia that has no gun control. Chicago is a short ride from both Iowa and Indiana both of which have lax gun control.
Stop and Frisk also has an effect, but there are much better ways of doing that which do not involve racial profiling.
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,337 posts)Chicago Literally touches Indiana. Or you can just head out to the suburbs where gang-banger straw-buying has been going on for decades.
Back in the 90's there was a young rookie cop killed in the line of duty that lead to investigations of the gun shops in the near south suburbs. I forget the statistics but there was an ALARMING amount of gun crimes traced back to a handful of gun stores. Chicago sent investigators posing as gang straw-purchasers and the stores willingly sold guns to people admitting to buying for gangs.
Same scenario for Mexico. "But Mexico has strict gun laws!!!" Never mind the thousands of guns flowing in to Mexico from Arizona etc.
bongbong
(5,436 posts)I'm seeing more and more straight-out lies from the gun humpers. They're getting nervous about limits being put on their Precious.
None too soon!
hack89
(39,171 posts)you can bet on it.
bongbong
(5,436 posts)That your check from the NRA is bigger this month.
hack89
(39,171 posts)you do much to help the cause - I hope you get the recognition you deserve.
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)This is the only thing that makes the difference. JFC, ATF has known that is the cause for decades. There is not one damn thing a single city can do if it's lost in a sea of lax gun laws. Good lord, the stories I could tell.
hack89
(39,171 posts)fix them and the availability of guns becomes irrelevant.
Anything and everything except the guns. We must first fix all of humanity's frailties. We must first develop some type of 300 million person "mental health" registry that will, presumably, label citizens as good or bad, and will for the first time in history be a magical predictor of violent behavior. We must first eliminate poverty. We must first eliminate drugs and gangs. We must first eliminate "desperation" (whatever the hell that means).
The gunners say on the one hand that the same evil government against which they must protect themselves by way of their collections of JackMaster-400's and their boxes of bullets must also, on the other hand, perfect mankind through enormous and intrusive programs that will identify in advance the miscreants among us and eliminate poverty, crime, drugs, gangs, and existential angst.
And the gunners make these arguments with no apparent shame.
hack89
(39,171 posts)unlike you I have not given up.
Violent crime is an easy problem to fix. Focus the legal system on violent offenders and put them a way for a long time. End the war on drugs and stop jailing nonviolent offenders. Make using a gun when committing a crime a ticket to a long staying jail. Let's take the easy steps first.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)as well as crime rates.
based on that, readers here should immediately discount any statement or conclusion you make.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)A bit of a drop.
Hardly the murder capital anymore.
http://homicidewatch.org/2012/12/26/2012-in-review/
This is an historic year in D.C. For the first time since 1963, fewer than 100 people have been killed in our city. While we continue to mourn those who have been killed, we must celebrate and reflect on the lives not lost. On the violence avoided.
In an interview with Homicide Watch D.C., Police Chief Cathy Lanier spoke about the decline.
When I think about the number from where I started from in 1990 when we had 479, it seems dramatic, she said. Ive said since 07 our tipping point is less than 100 and we can do it. But I still think about 82 families who have lost somebody. So its certainly not, its not victory. But it feels like a good milestone for us. I think we passed the tipping point.
As of this writing, 87 people have been killed in DC in 2012.
hack89
(39,171 posts)former9thward
(32,077 posts)Does Philly have the same gun laws as PA?
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)the poster who first said they had strong laws then said they did not now agrees with me.
and if the best you can do is defend a lie, then you aren't doing very well.
former9thward
(32,077 posts)CreekDog
(46,192 posts)Pennsylvania laws forbid the city from enacting laws which regulate or restrict weapons beyond state law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Pennsylvania
but you are only here to 1) undermine a gun control discussion and 2) to defend a poster who posts to the right of nearly every DU member.
ironically this morning you said that you were a liberal and bristled when you were called a conservative --yet here you are, not only defending a conservative, but defending the lies they are spreading.
if you're a liberal, you are pretty lousy at it.
former9thward
(32,077 posts)You are wrong about the Philly gun laws but you can't admit that because you have already gone out on the limb and called others "liars". The PA Supreme Court upheld not just one but three laws which were challenged by the NRA because they were more restrictive than state law. Your Wiki entry is beyond useless because it is not written by judges or lawyers. Any attorney who used a Wiki citation in a court brief would be tossed out of the courtroom. I won't call you a "liar" however because posters make mistakes, including me, and they are not intentional. Not everything on a discussion board that is a mistake is a lie.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)This was the false foundation of his argument and he gave up on it once I confronted him on the fact that it was false.
Hack admitted it.
What I've said is true.
You are trying to make this thread about something else.
As for "tolerance". I know plenty of Republicans and talk to them all the time, sometimes even about politics --I perfectly tolerate their opinions.
It's not your opinions I don't tolerate.
It's that you have the opinions of a Republican while pretending to be a liberal like we are.
And you're not. It's that which bugs me in the context of you fighting Obama from the right, spewing right wing talking points, and working against social programs and principles common to nearly all members here.
While telling me to my face that you are in fact a liberal.
I even tolerate insults, I just will not tolerate that you think I'm too stupid to recognize them as insulting.
Yavin4
(35,445 posts)It doesn't matter what DC does on guns. VA, a subway ride away, has lax laws. You can just skip over the state border and buy all the guns you want.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Yes, neighboring jurisdictions with much lower murder rates do not ban gun possession. That tells me something.
Yavin4
(35,445 posts)that DC does.
gun control had very little to do with it. I'd have to say most of the thanks should go to gentrification that started in the 1980's- I've seen entire neighborhoods go from gangs to families in less then a generation.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)A big victory for NYC's "stop and frisk" policy, I guess.
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)Good point about the "stop and frisk" policy.
villager
(26,001 posts)n/t
hack89
(39,171 posts)how cities like Chicago, DC and Philadelphia with equally strict gun control have some of the highest murder rates in the country. Thanks in advance.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)why do you insist on lying?
are you unable to make a good argument by telling the truth?
hack89
(39,171 posts)RetroLounge
(37,250 posts)And Chicago is surrounded by suburbs with little or no gun control.
But you knew this, right?
Why so dishonest?
RL
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)villager
(26,001 posts)Mix in economic implosion, let the guns flow, and the blood is right behind....
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)RetroLounge
(37,250 posts)RL
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)RetroLounge
(37,250 posts)Try to keep up, the other NRA supporters are miles ahead of you.
RL
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)go write another poem.
RetroLounge
(37,250 posts)You're so very second tier.
All the first-tier gun-nutz post their drivel, and then you jump right in with your ususal "yeah, what he said" agreement.
It's pretty funny.
RL
p.s. Sorry, did not not snark / rhyme enough for you?
villager
(26,001 posts)n/t
hack89
(39,171 posts)wouldn't all those lax gun laws resulte in more gun violence?
Could it be that DC is where the poverty, crime, drugs and gangs are? That is people that are the issue here?
And what is your excuse for Chicago?
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)not saying gun laws are the full explanation --just dealing with your contention that gun laws are strong in the surrounding area --they aren't. the surrounding area is in large part in Indiana, practically at the border of Chicago.
also, Retrolounge explained this to you in this very thread but you chose to ignore it.
or are you being dishonest again (even though we can all see it plainly)? maybe you are being dishonest, because you've peddled lies throughout this thread, continually characterizing numerous cities as having strict gun laws only to have that proven false, see: Cincinnati, Detroit, and Philadelphia.
hack89
(39,171 posts)every city has seen significant drops in gun violence over the past 30 years. Even as gun laws have become more lax and gun ownership has increased.
So we know it is complex issue that transcends the simplistic meme of "more guns equals more violence".
NY sees racial profiling as the solution. I see the solution as drug legalization, jobs and education.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)that's one thing we all know now.
your misrepresentation and perhaps outright lying about gun laws in states shows a contempt for DUers that are reading your posts.
you've done it again and again.
lied about gun laws in Philly, Detroit, and Cincinnati. in different posts, not just one.
hack89
(39,171 posts)due to their lax gun laws? Isn't your equation a simple one: "easy gun availability = more gun deaths"?
Here we have all these areas in America with lax gun laws and low murder rates. How is that possible?
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)added to the one you started this thread out with, Philadelphia.
hack89
(39,171 posts)like the rest of the country. Looks like their laws are working just fine.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)or ignorant of the topic you were posting about.
which is it?
hack89
(39,171 posts)and they appear to be working just fine.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)you are completely discrediting the argument against gun control through very obvious dishonest and false arguments.
people will walk away from this thread and automatically give less credit to anti-gun control arguments because of what you've done in this thread.
you have HARMED the people whose rights you think you are protecting.
hack89
(39,171 posts)that states with lax gun control laws also enjoyed historic drops in gun violence. The meme of "more guns = more gun violence" has been discredited
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)while using those lies to convince people that gun control was ineffective.
you are afraid to even mention it at this point, because after admitting to getting Philadelphia gun laws wrong, to have to admit it in two of your other, later examples will just blow your argument out of the water and shred your credibility.
so keep pretending you didn't post the falsehoods.
i'll keep reminding you of it.
hack89
(39,171 posts)that states with lax gun laws have also enjoyed historic drops in gun violence. How is that possible?
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)you have harmed your movement.
you have decreased support for your ideas on DU by putting forward arguments that were easily shown to be false and even deliberate attempts to pull fast ones on fellow DUers.
whatever question you ask of me, is likely complete BS based on your tactics in this thread and everyone will see that.
if you want me to answer all your questions, start with coming clean about why you posted false information here about PA, OH and MI gun laws.
hack89
(39,171 posts)they will introduce some bills that will die in the republican controlled House.
Have you seen where House Dems are already backing away from an AWB and proposing just a ban on high capacity mags because they know they need repuke votes?
Savor that feeling of righteousness you are feeling right now - that as good as it will get for you.
RetroLounge
(37,250 posts)First, hack, learn the difference between Excuse and Possible Explanation.
Next, Try reading what I already wrote for a change, hack.
"And Chicago is surrounded by suburbs with little or no gun control."
Nice try, hack.
RL
hack89
(39,171 posts)since the early 1990's with those gun laws in neighboring areas in place. How is that possible?
RetroLounge
(37,250 posts)Keep lying and dissembling your lies...
It's enjoyable to watch.
RL
hack89
(39,171 posts)so tell me what role those weak gun laws played when Chicago's gun deaths steadily fell for 20 years.
You say Chicago has a gun problem because of the towns around them. Yet their "problem" has never been better. So those lax gun laws have caused no harm have they?
RetroLounge
(37,250 posts)RL
hack89
(39,171 posts)that is always the issue with anti-gun folks like you. Your response to guns is emotional not rational. You never bother to dig into the statistics and trends.
You will never admit that you have never been safer because you cannot reconcile that hard fact with your emotions.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)mention. It is a complicated set of ideas that interact with one another.
The Rise and Decline of Homicideand Why
Annual Review of Public Health
Abstract
http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.21.1.505
A dramatic rise in homicide in the latter half of the 1980s peaked during the 1990s and then declined at an equally dramatic rate. Such trends in homicide rates can be understood only by examining rates in specific age, sex, and racial groups. The increase primarily involved young males, especially black males, occurred first in the big cities, and was related to the sudden appearance of crack cocaine in the drug markets of the big cities around 1985. This development led to an increased need for and use of guns and was accompanied by a general diffusion of guns into the larger community. The decline in homicide since the early 1990s has been caused by changes in the drug markets, police response to gun carrying by young males, especially those under 18 years old, the economic expansion, and efforts to decrease general access to guns, as well as an increase in the prison population and a continued decline in homicide among those over age 24. The lessons learned from the recent homicide trends and the factors associated with them have important implications for public health and the criminal justice system.
One additional reason for lower homicide numbers is better medical care for gunshot wounds.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324712504578131360684277812.html
BALTIMOREThe number of U.S. homicides has been falling for two decades, but America has become no less violent.
Crime experts who attribute the drop in killings to better policing or an aging population fail to square the image of a more tranquil nation with this statistic: The reported number of people treated for gunshot attacks from 2001 to 2011 has grown by nearly half.
......................................
In other words, more people in the U.S. are getting shot, but doctors have gotten better at patching them up. Improved medical care doesn't account for the entire decline in homicides but experts say it is a major factor.
Emergency-room physicians who treat victims of gunshot and knife attacks say more people survive because of the spread of hospital trauma centerswhich specialize in treating severe injuriesthe increased use of helicopters to ferry patients, better training of first-responders and lessons gleaned from the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan.
RetroLounge
(37,250 posts)until they weren't...
MORE GUNS!!!!
RL
hack89
(39,171 posts)I doubt you even know what I think on the issue of gun control.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)former9thward
(32,077 posts)I used to live in Chicago and also the surrounding suburbs. What exactly do you mean by "little or no gun control"?
RetroLounge
(37,250 posts)But you are correct, and I did some more digging and found I was wrong
Most suburbs followed Chicago's recent lead and banned handguns or restricted them.
Morton Grove, Evanston, Highland Park to name a few.
But Isn't Indiana less restrictive and less than an hour away?
RL
former9thward
(32,077 posts)But if you are an out of state resident then federal laws apply and you can't buy guns generally without going through a FFL dealer in your home state. Now if you are going to say people violate the law and do private purchases -- yes of course they do. Just as they do with illegal drugs or pretty much anything else.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)Kelly rightly attributes his success to aggressive law-enforcement tactics, including stop-and-frisk, the routine searching of people the police suspect are carrying illegal weapons or other contraband.
Chicago and Detroit dont perform stop-and-frisks; Philadelphia used the tactic, but its hands have been cuffed by the courts this year to predictable results.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/editorials/fruits_of_stop_and_frisk_rxQSaUSfCuIdlM5zY9rUjP
When you regard the police as your personal army and disregard civil rights then anything is possible I guess.
Paladin
(28,272 posts)Happened in a town in Connecticut a few days ago; maybe you heard about it......
hack89
(39,171 posts)the police stop people that look "wrong" or "suspicious" and conduct a pat down search. Purely by chance they mostly have non-white skins.
Do you think police should have the power to stop and search people based purely on a whim? Amazing how guns seem to bring out the authoritarian side of liberals. Here we have progressives ready to go down on a man who called the police his "personal army". Amazing.
Ohio Joe
(21,761 posts)From a few paragraphs into the article:
"According to ccrjustice.org, 685,724 stops were made in New York City in 2011; 88% of those stopped were not charged with any crime; 84% of those stopped were African-American or Latino."
And the start of the very next paragraph:
"Did you know that guns are found in less than .02% of stops? So while it may be getting a few guns off the street and save a few lives, its at the cost of violating a targeted groups Constitutional rights."
http://tv.msnbc.com/2012/12/14/stop-and-frisk-racist-and-ineffective/
Stop and frisk is simply a racist policy.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)only 0.02% are foolish enough to be carrying guns on them. That was the original intent of the law, as I read it years ago. Get people to stop carrying guns on their persons.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)Notice the peak year is 1990, Gun Control peaked in 1968 with the passage of the Gun Control Act of 1968. With that act, the Murder rate went UP. As Congress weakened that act in the 1980s, it lead to a DROP in murder after 1990. The effect of any law is often 5-10 years later, thus the 1968 Act full affect started around 1975-1980, the full effect of the drop in Gun Control in the early 1980s, came if effect with the drop in murder rate after 1990.
Side note: It has been extremely hard to get a hand gun permit in New York State since the Passage of the Sullivan Act in 1912 (a product of the New York State Legislature). Similar restrictions on owning pistols have been on the books in New York State since about the same time period. The vast majority of weapons used in crimes in New York, before and after the passage of the Federal Gun Control Act of 1968 has been illegal under New York State Law, and after 1968, illegal under Federal Law.
Now, before I go into an argument that Gun Control had no effect, the Studies I have read all pointed out the raise and drop in the murder rate do NOT correlate with increase (or decrease) Gun Control laws, increase prison sentences (or decrease prison sentences) etc. There is one report that shows a slight connection with Abortion, but it appears to be more coincidence then a real connection (restrictions on Abortions staring in the 1980s did NOT seem to have an affect on the murder rate).
The two trends that seems to have affect is the migration of African Americans to northern urban centers starting in the 1920s and increase spending on Children and Youth starting in the 1960s. These trends are 15-20 years trends but seems to be the answer.
Migration of African Americans from the Rural South to Urban Northern Cities.
The vast majority of African Americans lived in the rural South prior to WWII, they started to immigrant north during WWI, and this accelerated during and after WWII (For example Mississippi was Majority African American in the late 1880s till the 1930s, then became majority white). These African American lived in and were the product of the American South. Historically the American South had the highest Murder rate in the Country. In fact if you remove the South AND African Americans from the Murder counts, US Murder rate is lower then Europe's.
African Americans of the 1880-1940 period were a product of this Southern tradition of violence. This culture was a product of who settled the South (former Herders from Scotland, England and Ireland) whose traditions were never to take an insult without a response, to response to any perceived act of "disrespect" with violence and to seek violence revenge if someone did that person "harm" (including slights and other interactions that most people laugh off). This culture of violence started with who settled the South, but made worse by the introduction of Slavery, which required instantaneous violence to prevent any widespread slave revolt.
The post Civil War era did NOT see a reduction in violence (even when firearms were outlawed). African American were both victims of this culture AND part of that culture and thus absorbed those norms, as norms within the African American Community. The African Americans who moved North, starting during WWI, brought with them this culture of violence.
While I am concentrating on African Americans, you also see this in Southern Whites who moved North. Southern Whites had two advantages over African Americans, first, most of the Southern Whiles did NOT come from the deep South (As did most of the African Americans), but the more marginal areas of the south (such as Appalachian). In these marginal areas the Southern culture of violence was not as deep and thus easier for these Southern Whiles to adopt Northern Standards. The Second reason is Southern Whites were better able to mix with people already in the Northern Cities and thus were quicker able to absorb Northern Traditions (i.e. you had better mixing of Appalachian Hillbillies, with other foreign immigrants AND other whites from the rural areas of the North then between any of these three groups with African Americans).
This is complicated for statistics were race based NOT where the person who did the crime come from, thus a lot of ex-Southerns acts of violence was called "violence by whites" (and thus diluted by white population from other areas of the US and from overseas) while African American violence were recorded as being done by African Americans. Thus African Americans were shown to be violent, but the similar Violence of Southern Whites was diluted by the larger northern white and foreign white immigrants and they much lower rates of violence.
Most African Americans moved north After WWII, but they were of the age (Generally over 30) when they are settled and having a family takes them out of social groups that interact other then for work. On the other hand, they children, also a product of the South AND a product of the African American Community that was still dominated by people from the South, took with them into life of the inner city, this Southern, don't back down, fight for respect tradition. Thus you saw the increase in Murder Rates in Northern Inner Cities starting in the late 1950s, and accelerating in the 1960s.
Now, people absorb the dominated culture they are raised in. In the North it is a much less violent culture then the Rural South. Thus as African Americans became more and more removed from the Rural South, they replaced rural south traditions with Northern Traditions (i.e. Laugh off slight insults, work with each other, respect is internal, not what others think of you, but what you think of yourself). Along with these Northern Traditions is a tradition of NOT fighting over minor issues (and a tendency to view everything as minor). Starting in the 1980s you had mostly third generation of African Americans in Northern Cities (i.e. it was their Great Grand Parents who moved north, not their parents or grandparents). The Southern Tradition of fighting over Respect and one's "Manhood" became something of a distant memory, something to talk with relatives about long dead ancestors. This overall change in African American Culture lead to a less violence inner city and with a less violent inner city, less murder.
Children and Youth Spending
The other major influence was the increase funding for Children And Youth Services as part of Lyndon Johnson's Great Society program. In many abusive situations, the children learn to be abusive, as they see their fathers beat up their mothers and get away with it. These boys (it is mostly Males who are violent, the girls learn the lesson of being "helpless" and thus something to be beat on) will absorb the norms they see in their lives. Above I mentioned how African Americans absorb the norms of the Rural South, in abusive situations, these children absorb the norms in their own home and learn violence is the way to go. These same children slowly grow up and become violent in school and other social groups, and tend to be the people who are violent in their 20s and are the role models for their own children (and the cycle continues),
The increase spending on Children And Youth (and the related development of Protection from Abuse law) permitted Governmental units to intervene is such situations and correct the errors. The Children, seeing that they family were being "Punished" (Punished in the child's eyes as they see themselves removed from their parents and put with "strangers" internalize that such violence is NOT good and make efforts to break the cycle, i.e. Males try NOT to abuse their wives/girlfriends and women learn it is NOT right to be a punching bag (I do a lot of PFA work and you be surprised how often you find an abusive husband/boyfriend with a submissive wife/girlfriend, they find each other). This change often takes generations to work its way out of the family (i.e. each generation gets better at NOT getting into the abuse cycle). A side affect of this is, each generation also learn Violence is NOT the answer to problems within. This is again compatible with the murder rate increase in the 1960s (as the Children and Youth became more aggressive) but the effect would NOT kick in for 20 or more years (1990 is 20 years AFTER 1970, most of the Great Society Programs kicked in from 1966-1970, thus the decline after 1990 fits the drop in murder rates after 1990.
Now, the above two reasons are NOT incompatible (i.e. BOTH could be working together), but I mention them for they provide a better explanation for the drop in the Murder rate then the various Gun Control laws passed since WWI (and the claim that Legalized Abortion is the reason, i.e. less unwanted children, mean more children that are loved as children and thus such children grow up to be less violent).
downandoutnow
(56 posts)no more poor people left!
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)That's only the first of your ridiculous premises.
It may cost a fortune to live comfortably here, but five or six million out of eight million people manage to do so in households that earn $35,000 or less. Being poor here sucks, but on the whole about no more so than being poor in most other US locations. We have a pretty mean and abusive social welfare system, but unlike some places it actually exists and sort-of helps some people.
Really your comment deserves more ass-kicking than I'm going to give you. I've decided not to pass up the opportunity to correct your appalling and insulting misconceptions.
downandoutnow
(56 posts)The most money I ever made was in the mid-50s a few years ago -- in New York City. Not in Manhattan, yes, but one of the nicest parts of an outer borough. Threw a lot of money down at a nice local bar on the weekends, and ended up saving money as well without even really trying. I wish I could get even close to that again, but I won't.
Sorry again!
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)I should know a joke when I see it!
This city can really drive you mad.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)JoeyT
(6,785 posts)I don't care what policies Bloomberg advocates, he's not my friend, he's not liberal or progressive, and I don't want to be associated with him. You might not want the push for new gun control associated with him either.
Edited to add: The attitude that the vile peasantry shouldn't own guns, but it's fine for the rich from a man that bought his way into office is about as nasty a sentiment as you can get a politician to admit to. And apparently a sentiment as you can get progressives to admire.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)If Hillary45 don't run for some reason, I would want him to rejoin the democratic party as he is the only person besides Hillary45 who can defeat Jeb Bush.
and he is a lifetime liberal from Mass.
and he will in 2014 finance any candidate who is for getting guns off the street.
Therefore one hopes its the democrats, but the killing of children is not a partisian issue
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Got to love downward trends.
Zax2me
(2,515 posts)Kind of F's up Bloomberg's argument.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)run, you never know. Being that there is no other 2016 option that will lead to victory.
Sometimes an issue falls into someones hands like a message from above
The Gun issue is that perfect storm of an issue.
and before he was mayor, he was a lifelong democrat. So haters of Bloomberg get over it.