Crime Thread

roger wyoming II · PostAug 21, 2015#57012015-08-21T16:19+00:00

Aesir, I really doubt Dotson would run against Slay and my understanding is that the rank and file don't particularly like him. But it would be very interesting if a somewhat formidable white south sider did run against Slay on a more "law and order" platform if things continue to be dicey on the crime issue. I don't think that person could win, but it might do some damage and lead to someone like Tishaura Jones who I think could do a decent job pairing the African-American electorate with a fair amount of progressive whites. However, to junk that up a bit, Slay's team would probably encourage/run another black candidate to split the African-American vote. Fun times!

But I think if the crime/protest issue calms down a fair amount and the Rams and NGA stay, etc. etc. it'll be tough to usurp Slay.

shimmy · PostAug 21, 2015#57022015-08-21T16:29+00:00

Mound City wrote:
pat wrote:[H]ow do you propose, practically, that we put a stop crime surge happening right now? If banning handguns and stop and frisk are pointless, what else is there to do immediately to fix our current problem? Or do we just ride it out until we ultimately correct the poverty problem? I don't think we can wait for the latter to occur.
In all honesty, I think the single simplest, most pragmatic measure our government could take in reducing violent crime would be to legalize all drugs.

Unfortunately, that's something that would need to be addressed at the federal level.

On this point we can all agree. There it is: common ground.

pat · PostAug 21, 2015#57032015-08-21T16:31+00:00

When can I expect you to knock on my door with your demands that I turn them over to you for prompt destruction?

I always find this argument comical. Just because you create some law, for example banning handguns, doesn't mean the government is going to take it upon themselves to actively seek out those gun owners and enforce it. They don't do that with drugs, just the serious dealers. The idea is to set a tone, a certain expectation that you can't just have a gun without consequence. Go after the bad offenders.

In all honesty, I think the single simplest, most pragmatic measure our government could take in reducing violent crime would be to legalize all drugs.

Unfortunately, that's something that would need to be addressed at the federal level.

Yeah, I'm a proponent of legalizing drugs and think it could go a long way to reducing crime. Practically, we can't legalize them, but we can certainly decriminalize them. The city has done that in regards to marijuana. I think there's some possibility of decriminalizing other drugs if you can show some example of successes with pot being decriminalized.

Aesir · PostAug 21, 2015#57042015-08-21T16:39+00:00

pat wrote:
I always find this argument comical. Just because you create some law, for example banning handguns, doesn't mean the government is going to take it upon themselves to actively seek out those gun owners and enforce it. They don't do that with drugs, just the serious dealers. The idea is to set a tone, a certain expectation that you can't just have a gun without consequence.

And what consequence do I deserve by owning a gun? What misfortune do I deserve to have befall me? You're arguing for selective enforcement of gun confiscation? Who will get their guns stolen by you and your freres-in-arms, then? Care to share your victim selection process?

You might find this comical, but I don't. You are advocating theft. If you intend to put your words into actions, it would do you well to realize the seriousness of what you are proposing.

roger wyoming II · PostAug 21, 2015#57052015-08-21T16:40+00:00

While we're speaking of pot, I think my strongest recommendation is that we roll up one giant doobie and have a communal smoke-in.

Aesir · PostAug 21, 2015#57062015-08-21T16:44+00:00

As for legalization, I'm a huge fan of the KC NORML proposition. They go all the way with it, including releasing current prisoners, something the Show-Me people do not. There is also some strangeness going on with the Show-Me group that someone on the /r/stlouis subreddit posted. I'll try to find it.

MarkHaversham · PostAug 21, 2015#57072015-08-21T17:08+00:00

roger wyoming II wrote:pat, I'm of the belief that policing tactics don't have a tremendous impact on urban crime but to the extent that we can I think we should do some of the things I mentioned above.... targeting violent offenders and their associates more, etc. (which I believe is part of the partnership plan with feds, etc.) If one thing were to stand out to me, though, if data shows that hiring more homicide detectives results in more arrests/convictions then that would be an area to stress; I don't think anything erodes morale and community more when "getting away with murder" is literal and common. Solving more of these crimes and earlier I think builds confidence in the community and can serve as a deterrent.

I'm not optimistic about the short-term. If people aren't willing to allow the poors to live in their neighborhoods via mixing subsidized housing into wealthier neighborhoods, or willing to invest in these neighborhoods, then I don't know if there's much the city can do. Maybe turning around the police's public image with respect to racial bias would help bring in more tipsters to solve these murders. I don't think legalizing marijuana would have too much impact; there's still meth and crack to be sold, and I doubt anyone can get much support for legalizing that, so it's not as though the drug gangs will disappear.

pat · PostAug 21, 2015#57082015-08-21T18:29+00:00

And what consequence do I deserve by owning a gun? What misfortune do I deserve to have befall me? You're arguing for selective enforcement of gun confiscation? Who will get their guns stolen by you and your freres-in-arms, then? Care to share your victim selection process?

You might find this comical, but I don't. You are advocating theft. If you intend to put your words into actions, it would do you well to realize the seriousness of what you are proposing.

Come on now. Is it that hard to have a rational discussion without offending someone? Take your emotions out of this for a minute. I don't have all the answers. We are talking hypothetically. This isn't even real, yet it sounds like you're getting pissed off about something that likely won't happen.

Is it stealing your money when we pass tax laws? Its not theft. I never suggested coming into your home and taking your gun. There could potentially be other options. Gun buy-backs, you could move, whatever else. Now this is just a suggested thought. Its not really happening ok. I'm not taking your gun. So explain the seriousness to me. I am interested. Maybe my ideas are bad and won't work, which is perfectly fine. But explain why that is instead of suggesting I'm a thief and tredding on your right to own a gun.

PostAug 21, 2015#57092015-08-21T18:34+00:00

And I'm not talking about all guns. I really think this is only applicable to handguns. I think owning a rifle or the like which is involved far less in homicides would be completely fine.

threeonefour · PostAug 21, 2015#57102015-08-21T18:34+00:00

shimmy wrote: It's quite simple really.

If you point a gun at a cop, you're going to get shot.
If you loot a store, you're going to be condemned.
If you throw objects at police, you're going to get arrested.

No matter what your social, racial, or economic background, these are known truths of our society. So if you do anything of these things, then you should expect the consequences. Excusing these actions and disregarding the known consequences is, by definition, irresponsible. And that, in turn, undermines the movement's legitimacy.

As I said, it's really quite simple.

Exactly. Plenty of people, regardless of their social, racial, or economic background, understand these truths.

Now, about that ban on handguns that some here seem to favor: A reduction in the number of handguns would only reduce the number of good guys with guns (and permits to carry them) who are willing to defend themselves and other innocent people. (Seriously, do we think people who couldn't care less about law and order are going to abide by another law?)

pat · PostAug 21, 2015#57112015-08-21T18:41+00:00

Maybe. You know a lot of good guys with guns going up to north city to defend the innocent?

It could, not would but could, stop the good guys from bringing their guns into the city just to be stolen. That's the point. I don't know if it would work.

jcity · PostAug 21, 2015#57122015-08-21T19:20+00:00

"

If people aren't willing to allow the poors to live in their neighborhoods via mixing subsidized housing into wealthier neighborhoods

haha. this will never happen. I love this borderline communist theory though, yet it just doesn't work. Look at many areas of the city and north county that pushed for Section 8. all have FAILED. clearly having highly concentrated poverty isn't good either, but there's no way to enforce this.
I like the idea of legalizing everything, similar to Portugal. Pot legalization is certainly a start. Let's not lock up people for personal drug use. It's a complete waste of resources.
Let's lock up offenders like the guy who was just shot and killed by police who was in a known drug den who pointed his gun at police. Let's have the harshest sentencing in the country for gun crimes. There's no way the city will pull off a full handgun ban in the city in the state of Missouri. Let's just lock up the criminals that are using guns for crimes. Even first offenders. automatic 20 years in jail if you use a gun in a crime, minimum. No more hard luck bs sob stories. let's make it clear to criminals or potential criminals, you will be locked up. No more weak judges.

MarkHaversham · PostAug 21, 2015#57132015-08-21T20:59+00:00

threeonefour wrote: Now, about that ban on handguns that some here seem to favor: A reduction in the number of handguns would only reduce the number of good guys with guns (and permits to carry them) who are willing to defend themselves and other innocent people. (Seriously, do we think people who couldn't care less about law and order are going to abide by another law?)

Well, a lot of bad people's guns are stolen from good guys with guns, so a reduction of guns in the hands of good guys would by that logic be pretty effective!

More broadly, nobody thinks criminals will suddenly stop carrying guns because they don't want to break the law. But if there are less guns around, and they are hard to get, why wouldn't that be effective? Fortunately, we have the example of every national gun regulation in the world to demonstrate that gun regulations work (Australia probably being the closest analogue to our situation).

jcity wrote:"
If people aren't willing to allow the poors to live in their neighborhoods via mixing subsidized housing into wealthier neighborhoods
haha. this will never happen. I love this borderline communist theory though, yet it just doesn't work. Look at many areas of the city and north county that pushed for Section 8. all have FAILED. clearly having highly concentrated poverty isn't good either, but there's no way to enforce this.
I like the idea of legalizing everything, similar to Portugal. Pot legalization is certainly a start. Let's not lock up people for personal drug use. It's a complete waste of resources.
Let's lock up offenders like the guy who was just shot and killed by police who was in a known drug den who pointed his gun at police. Let's have the harshest sentencing in the country for gun crimes. There's no way the city will pull off a full handgun ban in the city in the state of Missouri. Let's just lock up the criminals that are using guns for crimes. Even first offenders. automatic 20 years in jail if you use a gun in a crime, minimum. No more hard luck bs sob stories. let's make it clear to criminals or potential criminals, you will be locked up. No more weak judges.

I don't think I understand your point about section 8: areas where poor people live pushed for section 8 and failed, therefore decentralizing poverty doesn't work? We haven't tried anything like a regional mixed housing mandate, which is what is being discussed here.

As for gun sentencing, most gun deaths are the result of impulse, so I don't have much faith in judicial deterrents as an effective policy. Most gun homicides are the result of someone being angry, not someone weighing the cost-benefit relationship.

urban_dilettante · PostAug 21, 2015#57142015-08-21T22:28+00:00

Aesir wrote:And if you want to seriously take a huge cut out of violent crime, legalize all drugs and let people that are in prison for drug "crimes" free. Heal families and communities that have had their breadwinners locked up.

i'm not necessarily opposed to decriminalizing drugs, but how many of those locked up for drug crimes do you think are going to go back to their poverty-stricken communities and "win bread" for their families? how many do you think were "winning bread" for their families prior to being locked up? again, the root of the issue is concentrated poverty and discrimination, which has honest-to-god, real-world psychological repurcussions. the drug culture and violence grows out of that poverty and discrimination.

jcity · PostAug 21, 2015#57152015-08-21T23:04+00:00

So, again, still having the harshest sentencing in the country would be a start. I think eventually criminals and potential criminals would possibly think twice. If sentencing isn't a deterrent why even bother to have it at all? Imagine what that would look like.
"Mandating" living demographics doesn't work. Section 8 did start in middle class areas which actually ended up hurting the neighborhoods and were absolute failures. Your utopia doesn't exist and can't be forced on people. It reminds me of forced busing in the 1970's. The same decade where the city lost more population than any other decade. Sadly crime is up by 20% in most major cities, including stl. Sadly it's starting to look more like the 70's.

shimmy · PostAug 22, 2015#57162015-08-22T00:25+00:00

MarkHaversham wrote:
More broadly, nobody thinks criminals will suddenly stop carrying guns because they don't want to break the law. But if there are less guns around, and they are hard to get, why wouldn't that be effective? Fortunately, we have the example of every national gun regulation in the world to demonstrate that gun regulations work (Australia probably being the closest analogue to our situation).

It won't be effective because it's a lost cause. Leaving aside the argument as to whether a gun ban is Constitutional, effective in reducing crime, or ethically right, there's simply no way to effectively implement it. There are an estimated 270 million privately-owned guns in the U.S. I'll repeat that: 270 million. That guarantees that criminals can continue to have access to guns because by now it is impossible to effectively ban and remove literally hundreds of millions of guns from society. Especially when many law enforcement departments refuse to enforce such bans (http://www.nysheriffs.org/articles/sher ... y-safe-act , http://www.inquisitr.com/1119266/gun-co ... -safe-act/).

And that's not to mention that law-abiding American gun owners simply won't comply with a gun ban. Gun buyback programs are good for buying junk guns from gun owners so that they can get cash for their next purchase. New York's SAFE Act, one of the toughest gun laws in the country which effectively bans "assault weapons" (whatever that means), has an estimated 90% non-compliance rate. That's another number worth repeating: 90% non-compliance rate. Numbers in California and Connecticut, two other states with extremely strict gun laws, offer similar numbers. In Connecticut, 50,000 "assault" weapons were registered out of an estimated 370,000 (https://www.cga.ct.gov/2011/rpt/2011-R-0158.htm).

Finally, gun rights is winning the gun control debate. For the first time in more than two decades, more people support expanding gun rights as opposed to tightening gun control. Furthermore, 57% believe that guns protect people from crime, as opposed to just 38% who think that they put people at risk (http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow ... story.html).

So, again, without rehashing the gun control merits argument that I've had numerous times on this forum, the idea is simply a non-starter. And to what someone else said earlier, I don't remember who, how does the NRA fuel the black market for guns? How can you argue that the NRA is the pawn of gun manufacturers by ensuring that their products are available on the free market while simultaneously arguing that they're fueling the black market, which by definition undermines the free market and doesn't produce any profits for gun manufacturers? These are contradictory claims. If you're going to demonize the NRA at least be consistent in your claims.

MarkHaversham · PostAug 22, 2015#57172015-08-22T02:21+00:00

As you said, gun bans are unconstitutional in the US, so referencing failed examples in the US isn't really disproving anything. Other countries, which have effectively implemented actual gun bans, have seen significant results.

I don't understand your comment that law-abiding gun owners wouldn't comply with a gun ban; if they're ignoring a ban wouldn't they no longer be law-abiding?

An article about effectiveness: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk ... australia/ I agree it would be difficult, but all methods of crime reduction would be difficult. Convincing people to implement the regulation requirement in the second amendment and pulling 9 figures of guns off the streets might be easier than convincing the wealthy to let poors live in their neighborhoods or to invest in poor areas.

shimmy · PostAug 22, 2015#57182015-08-22T11:41+00:00

Here's a comprehensive analysis of the Australian gun ban: http://www.gunsandcrime.org/auresult.html. If you follow it, you'll see that in its conclusion it includes the line, "So the murder and gun murder rates do not support the idea that anything about murder rates was caused by the ban/buyback" (emphasis is theirs). However, to be fair, likewise you'll see that it also discredits the gun rights argument that the assault rate in Australia has increased 800% since the ban because assaults were also already trending up before the ban.

MarkHaversham wrote: I don't understand your comment that law-abiding gun owners wouldn't comply with a gun ban; if they're ignoring a ban wouldn't they no longer be law-abiding?

You're right! Which means you've successfully increased the number of criminals by millions upon millions of people. So in other words, gun crime has then increased by like 1,000,000%.

And saying, "yeah, it would be difficult" is a vast understatement. I already showed that many in the law enforcement community refuse to enforce such laws. Also, you're right that you would have to change the Constitution in order to implement such laws, which as we both know would be impossible, especially when I also proved that gun rights is winning the debate.

On all of this though, we agree, because these are facts. It is also arguable as to whether Australia is even a legitimate template due to cultural differences. Firearms are simply a part of American identity (Lexington and Concord, Westerns, etc.) and much more prevalent among the American population. I can't find definitive numbers, but I've seen in a few place that about 5% of Australians currently own a firearm, down from 7% prior to the ban. In contrast, it is estimated that at least 30%+ of Americans own a firearm, and that is only those that reported owning a firearm (which when you take into account the amount of people that would reply to that question with "None of your damn business!", this is probably a conservative estimate).

So, as I said, lost cause.

gary kreie · PostAug 22, 2015#57192015-08-22T13:39+00:00

The Guns and Crime study is kind of old. Here is another article from the Guardian that says the gun death rate there fell from 2.6 per 100k to 1 per 100k.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... aves-lives

I hate the argument that we should give up because there are too many guns out there, so why bother. It sounds like the old HMO doctor who would tell you that you are not sick enough to treat over and over, and then switches to its too late to treat so we might as well not even try. They saved money by never treating anybody.

Aesir · PostAug 22, 2015#57202015-08-22T21:38+00:00

So get out there and try it!

MarkHaversham · PostAug 22, 2015#57212015-08-22T21:59+00:00

shimmy wrote:
MarkHaversham wrote: I don't understand your comment that law-abiding gun owners wouldn't comply with a gun ban; if they're ignoring a ban wouldn't they no longer be law-abiding?

You're right! Which means you've successfully increased the number of criminals by millions upon millions of people. So in other words, gun crime has then increased by like 1,000,000%.

And saying, "yeah, it would be difficult" is a vast understatement. I already showed that many in the law enforcement community refuse to enforce such laws. Also, you're right that you would have to change the Constitution in order to implement such laws, which as we both know would be impossible, especially when I also proved that gun rights is winning the debate.

On all of this though, we agree, because these are facts. It is also arguable as to whether Australia is even a legitimate template due to cultural differences. Firearms are simply a part of American identity (Lexington and Concord, Westerns, etc.) and much more prevalent among the American population. I can't find definitive numbers, but I've seen in a few place that about 5% of Australians currently own a firearm, down from 7% prior to the ban. In contrast, it is estimated that at least 30%+ of Americans own a firearm, and that is only those that reported owning a firearm (which when you take into account the amount of people that would reply to that question with "None of your damn business!", this is probably a conservative estimate).

So, as I said, lost cause.

I like to think I'm surrounded by people who are willing to obey the law, not murderous thugs intent on permitting their neighbors to live only so long as they get their way. If 30% of Americans would really prefer to shoot their way through a squad of policemen than honor a gun ban then A) I'm terrified and B) all the more reason to disarm those psychopaths.

As for gun culture, the number of Americans owning guns has been decreasing over time, so in the long term at least gun regulation might be more likely.

jcity · PostAug 23, 2015#57222015-08-23T00:07+00:00

Mrs. Hubbard has it 100% correct! White liberals thinking they are all "down" with BLM look like complete jokes to many, especially many in the black community. My favorite are all the BLM signs in cities like Clayton, a city that has police pull over more innocent blacks than most cities/suburbs.

http://fox2now.com/2015/08/21/a-little- ... oes-viral/

urban_dilettante · PostAug 23, 2015#57232015-08-23T04:07+00:00

well, she's right that white people don't care. what she doesn't address in her rant is the double standard: law-abiding black people are expected to march in the streets when an innocent black person is killed by another black person, but you never hear anyone demand that white people march in the street when, say, a white person guns down 9 black people in a church or guns down 10 people in a movie theater. at least she admits that police brutality is "out there". what she doesn't mention is that innocent black people are much more likely to be brutalized by police than even guilty white people. she also doesn't consider that crimes committed by criminals, and abuses committed by those who are paid and entrusted to serve and protect, are not equivalent betrayals. the whole "well, why aren't you protesting this or that?" response is just a convenient way to abstain from caring about the latter issue.

MarkHaversham · PostAug 23, 2015#57242015-08-23T12:57+00:00

urban_dilettante wrote:the whole "well, why aren't you protesting this or that?" response is just a convenient way to abstain from caring about the latter issue.

I never heard someone tell a chemist "if you care about science so much, why aren't you also studying physics?"

shimmy · PostAug 23, 2015#57252015-08-23T16:05+00:00

MarkHaversham wrote: I like to think I'm surrounded by people who are willing to obey the law, not murderous thugs intent on permitting their neighbors to live only so long as they get their way. If 30% of Americans would really prefer to shoot their way through a squad of policemen than honor a gun ban then A) I'm terrified and B) all the more reason to disarm those psychopaths.

As for gun culture, the number of Americans owning guns has been decreasing over time, so in the long term at least gun regulation might be more likely.

The number of Americans owning guns has been decreasing for two primary reasons.

1) The number of Americans who hunt has decreased dramatically, due in large part to urbanization.

2) Rise in single-person households. Men are much more likely than women to own guns, so in the modern age where there are more women living by themselves and out of a household with a gun, then this has an effect on the overall number of Americans who own a gun.

So really, it's other events that are causing the decline in gun ownership, it's not because Americans are finding guns to be more evil (which, as I previously linked, is the opposite of what's actually happen).

And you can like to think you're surrounded by whomever you want, but that doesn't change the reality of who you are actually surrounded by. It's like when people say "I like to go outside my home and feel safe." Well, just because you feel safe doesn't mean you are safe. And no one has any obligation to conform to your thoughts or feelings.

So in effect, you're terrified because 30% of Americans have the audacity to disagree with you and that they take their Constitutional rights seriously (50%+ if you take the number of Americans who believe that gun rights should be expanded). I'm sorry that you think over half of your countrymen are psychopaths, but that says something about liberal "tolerance". Also, you keep advocating that these "psychopaths" should be disarmed. Who exactly is going to do the disarming when law enforcement has shown that it has no desire to infringe on people's Constitutional rights?

Crime Thread

Choose Display Mode