Article

2010-09-15 Home Front: Culture Wars

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Anonymoose 2010-09-15 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11130 views ] Top

#1 Please forgive me if I fail to believe any of these FBI statistics.

Posted by Besoeker 2010-09-15 02:01|| 2010-09-15 02:01|| Front Page Top

#2 Reminds me of the saying, "A well-armed society is a polite society?"

Or something like that.

Posted by eltoroverde 2010-09-15 07:27|| 2010-09-15 07:27|| Front Page Top

#3 Ditto and ditto. Over the years more and more states have passed concealed carry laws. States where such laws have been passed, "violent" crime has gone done. Some of the liberal blue states where one cannot carry under just about any circumstances, violent crime is still a problem. 2nd amendment-based lawsuits are changing things in these hard-core anti-2nd amendment cities and states.

Posted by JohnQC 2010-09-15 07:55|| 2010-09-15 07:55|| Front Page Top

#4 > "A well-armed society is a polite society?"

But a well armed non society is another Somalia.

It's the society bit that's important, not the guns.

Posted by Bright Pebbles 2010-09-15 08:28|| 2010-09-15 08:28|| Front Page Top

#5 The left's mantra has been poverty=crime.

Both sides of the equation need to reexamined, neither of which the left would ever want to do. If poverty is increasing due to the economic recession then by the formula crime should also increase. General indications are that the trends are not running parallel. That means either crime is a chosen behavior rather than just an environmental behavior or that the very definition of poverty is false. In the former case implies that free will of the individual not 'The Man' or 'The Establishment' is the fundamental causal factor. That kills the left's victim game. In the latter case, it means that which is defined as poverty isn't. The relativity of simply drawing a statistical line and declaring anyone below it poor is a pure fiction. It exposes the excess and exaggeration of leftist rhetoric, once again, selling their guilt trips. Remember that when the numbers don't fit the theory, throw out the numbers. /sarc off

Posted by Procopius2k 2010-09-15 08:59|| 2010-09-15 08:59|| Front Page Top

#6 BP: Your point is well taken and an important distinction, to be sure.

Posted by eltoroverde 2010-09-15 10:30|| 2010-09-15 10:30|| Front Page Top

#7 How much of this is due to illegal immigrants leaving the country due to the recession/depression?

Posted by Black Charlie Chinemble5313 2010-09-15 10:45|| 2010-09-15 10:45|| Front Page Top

#8 I learned long ago, from a prominent criminologist, that historic crime rates almost exactly match the size of the male population age 15-30 cohort in proportion to the society at large. The only variables include married members of that group, fathers present in the family, and otherwise occupied members of that group (already in custody, in the military, etc...)

Spending on "anti-crime" programs, firearm ownership, and all other "social" trends really don't have a noticeable correlative effect.

Simply put, societies with lots of criminal opportunities and lots of potential criminals have lots of crime, but the opportunities are not the most important factor.

Wonder if that is still the case.

Posted by Halliburton - Mysterious Conspiracy Division 2010-09-15 11:24|| 2010-09-15 11:24|| Front Page Top

#9 "In this town of 250,000 it's the same 600-800 mopes that we generally chase around."

Local policeman from college, name long forgotten.

Posted by Besoeker 2010-09-15 12:05|| 2010-09-15 12:05|| Front Page Top

#10 I totally agree with bp. I will also say that I'm pretty sure lots of potential criminals were aborted in the early nineties and I think it's a good thing.

Posted by Penguin 2010-09-15 13:51|| 2010-09-15 13:51|| Front Page Top

#11 Besoeker,
I've heard my father say almost exactly the same thing about Oakland. Almost 30 years as a policeman there and he knew virtually every crook in town. 95% of the b.s. going on was caused by the
"regulars", the rest was random, or newbes entering the game.

Posted by bigjim-CA 2010-09-15 14:05|| 2010-09-15 14:05|| Front Page Top

#12 At one time, I analyzed crime statistics--40 years ago. Most likely the demographics of crime has changed since that time. About the only thing that I could find of the variables looked at that was correlated with crime was whether or not the person could read. That could be correlated with a lot of other things mentioned in this thread, father present in family, gangs in neighborhood, schooling, religious influences, etc.

Posted by JohnQC 2010-09-15 15:29|| 2010-09-15 15:29|| Front Page Top

#13 Despite the best efforts of the legal and 'human rights' fraterneties, this is probably the impact of technology on detection and conviction rates.

From Australia,

Overall, studies have shown juries are three times more likely to convict in identical cases if DNA evidence is presented at a trial.

Posted by phil_b 2010-09-15 20:48|| 2010-09-15 20:48|| Front Page Top

22:53 OldSpook
22:53 Barbara Skolaut
22:48 49 pan
22:43 49 pan
22:39 49 pan
22:38 OldSpook
22:36 49 pan
22:33 49 pan
22:30 OldSpook
22:22 rammer
22:15 trailing wife
21:50 Barbara Skolaut
21:50 AsymeTarzan Ulereper4435
21:40 AsymeTarzan Ulereper4435
21:26 GolfBravoUSMC
21:24 GolfBravoUSMC
21:23 Secret Master
21:11 swksvolFF
21:04 anonymous2u
21:01 trailing wife
20:49 Dale
20:48 phil_b
20:41 Shieldwolf
20:35 phil_b