NORTON META TAG

Showing posts with label violent crime. Show all posts
Showing posts with label violent crime. Show all posts

11 May 2013

Tom Coburn says after national park gun ban lifted, violent crime fell by 85 percent 9MAI13

sen tom coburn r OK deliberately lied on Morning Joe about the the level of violent crime in our National Parks since the law was changed allowing guns in the parks since 2010. Looking at the stats there is no way his claim can be attributed to an error. He is taking his orders from the nra and is employing their tactics of deception, misrepresentation, manipulation and lying, performing as the good nra minion he is, in their campaign against gun control. One really has to ask how his willingness to be dishonest for political and financial gain squares with his professed Christian faith? That is something he will have to settle with God, along with his responsibility for any harm done to anyone as a result of his actions. From PolitiFact.....

The Truth-O-Meter Says:
Coburn

"In 2010, everybody said you can't dare let guns go into the national parks, and of course the rapes, murders, robberies and assaults are down about 85 percent since we did that."

Tom Coburn on Thursday, May 9th, 2013 in an interview with MSNBC's "Morning Joe"

Tom Coburn says after national park gun ban lifted, violent crime fell by 85 percent

During an interview on the MSNBC show Morning Joe, Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., argued for legislation he’s proposing that would allow guns to be carried into lands controlled by the Army Corps of Engineers.
To make the case that guns make places safer, Coburn cited a dramatic before-and-after statistic that stems from the lifting of a ban on guns in national parks. Coburn was a leader in the effort to get Congress to approve the change. President Barack Obama signed the national park provision into law, and it took effect in February 2010.
"In 2010," Coburn said on Morning Joe, "everybody said you can't dare let guns go into the national parks, and of course the rapes, murders, robberies and assaults are down about 85 percent since we did that."
That’s a pretty stunning drop. Is it accurate?
When we checked with Coburn’s office, John Hart, a spokesman, acknowledged that his senator had misspoken in a way that overstated the decline.
Hart said Coburn’s office had compared FBI crime data on National Park Service land from 2008 to 2011, the most recent year available. By the office’s calculations, the number of violent incidents actually dropped by 12 percent, not 85 percent.
"The numbers show crime rates have declined, but he misspoke when he mentioned 85 percent," Hart said. "On balance, the facts support our conclusion that crime rates would go down under our policy, not the conclusion of the amendment’s critics who said that allowing guns in national parks would lead to more crime."
However, before we bless Coburn’s revised analysis, let’s look at the original data. Here’s a summary chart for violent crimes in the national parks between 2008 and 2011.

Year
Murder and
non-negligent manslaughter
Forcible rape
Robbery
Aggravated assault
Total violent crimes
2008
5
37
66
259
367
2009
3
34
64
206
307
2010
15
45
58
251
369
2011
7
34
58
224
323
Change, 2008-11
+40%
-8%
-12%
-14%
-12%
Change, 2009-11
+133%
0
-9%
+9%
+5%

A few issues jump out to us. First, murders actually went up between 2008 and 2011, contrary to what Coburn said.
More importantly, using 2008 as the "before" year in this before-and-after comparison amounts to cherry picking.
As we noted, the law went into effect in 2010, so the most obvious way to frame the comparison would be to use the data from 2009 (the last full year before the gun ban was lifted) and 2011 (the most recent year). And as it turns out, the comparison to 2009 is not nearly as favorable to Coburn’s overall point.
Between 2009 and 2011, these four categories of violent crimes actually rose collectively by 5 percent. Robberies did decline by 9 percent, but murders more than doubled (from a very small base), the number of rapes was stable and the tally of aggravated assaults -- by far the most common of these four crimes -- rose by 9 percent.
Meanwhile, it’s also worth noting that the number of crimes in national parks is generally pretty small, which makes it unclear how much stock anyone should place in year-to-year percentage increases and decreases.
Finally, we’ll point out that Coburn’s stated decline may -- or may not -- have been caused by the deterrence of having guns around. But if they were a cause for the decline from 2008 to 2011, what’s to stop someone from arguing that they were the cause of the increase from 2009 to 2011? The numbers alone simply don’t tell us.
Our ruling
On Morning Joe, Coburn said, "In 2010, everybody said you can't dare let guns go into the national parks, and of course the rapes, murders, robberies and assaults are down about 85 percent since we did that."
Coburn’s office acknowledges that he misspoke; they actually calculated a decline of 12 percent, which is dramatically lower than 85 percent.
But we find even the revised statistic to be questionable. It hinges on using 2008 data, when 2009 data would be more appropriate -- and a comparison using data from 2009 actually shows an increase in violent crime in national parks since the gun ban took effect. Meanwhile, it’s far from clear that guns had an influence on the relatively small number of crimes that take place in national parks.
We rate Coburn’s statement False.
About this statement:
Published: Thursday, May 9th, 2013 at 5:49 p.m.
Subjects: Guns, Recreation
Sources:
Tom Coburn, interview on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, May 9, 2013
Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, "Rising Tide of Violence," accessed May 9, 2013
Email interview with Jeff Ruch, executive director for Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, May 9, 2013
Email interview with Kurt Repanshek, founder and editor-in-chief of National Parks Traveler, May 9, 2013
Email interview with Mike Litterst, acting chief spokesman for the National Park Service, May 9, 2013
Email interview with John Hart, spokesman for Tom Coburn, May 9, 2013
Written by: Louis Jacobson
Researched by: Louis Jacobson
Edited by: Angie Drobnic Holan

11 January 2013

Are Big Cities More Dangerous Than Small Ones? 11JAN13

IT doesn't seem possible it could be this simple, but it is. From Mother Jones....
Are big cities more dangerous than small ones? Of course they are. This is so obvious that it's not even a question most people would think of asking.
And yet, if you'll bear with me for a bit, it turns out there's more of a mystery here than you might think. In 1996, for example, Ed Glaeser and Bruce Sacerdote wrote a paper trying to figure out why there's more crime in big cities. They came up with a couple of reasons. First, there's more valuable stuff to steal in big cities, so robbery is more profitable. Second, it's easier to be anonymous. If you mug someone in Mayberry, there's a good chance your victim will recognize you and report the crime. Beyond that they threw up their hands, suggesting that perhaps the rest of the difference might be due to the fact that families are less intact in big cities. But even after running batteries of statistical tests, they were still left scratching their heads. Sure, there are more broken families in big cities, but that "still leaves unanswered the question of why this variable is so important in leading to criminal behavior." What's more, "the results on higher benefit levels and lower arrest rates are intriguing but also not entirely satisfying."
Well, if that's not satisfying—and it isn't—how about an answer out of left field? Maybe the real answer is that big cities aren't much more dangerous than small ones. Let me explain.
One of the hallmarks of a good theory is that it answers questions you didn't even know you had, and it turns out that the answer to this mystery might lie in the association between gasoline lead and violent crime. I mentioned this briefly in "Criminal Element," my magazine piece about the lead-crime connection, but it deserves a little more explanation. So here it is.
In a nutshell, the lead-crime hypothesis is simple: exposure to gasoline lead in small children produces heightened aggressive tendencies. When an entire generation of children was exposed to lead in the 40s, 50s, and 60s, thanks to the boom in auto sales after World War II, it led to a huge rise in violent crime when the children grew up in the 60s, 70s, and 80s. The more lead they were exposed to, the more crime you got.
So where did we see the most exposure to gasoline lead? Answer: in places with the densest concentration of automobiles. And that's in the inner core of big cities. In the early 60s, big cities had double the ambient air lead levels of mid-size cities, which in turn had air lead levels 40 percent higher than small cities. (Nevin, p. 316.) So if lead exposure produces a rise in crime, you'd expect to see a bigger rise in big cities than in small ones. Over time, big cities would become increasingly more dangerous than small ones.
Likewise, when lead was removed from gasoline, and children started to grow up normally, you'd expect to see a bigger crime decrease in big cities. Over time, crime rates would start to converge.
And that's exactly what we see in the data. In the 70s and 80s, when big cities had their highest levels of lead-poisoned teenagers, they really were more dangerous places than small cities. But we began removing lead from gasoline in the early 70s, and right on schedule, crime rates in big cities peaked in 1991 and then started falling. The chart on the right tells the story. The top line is average rate of violent crime for every city in America with a population over 1 million. (Only Chicago is missing, because it lacks complete data.) The bottom line is the average rate of violent crime for cities with a population between 100,000 and 250,000.
The convergence between big and small cities is startling, and the biggest cities have shown the biggest drops. Violent crime rates have declined by more than 75 percent in New York and Los Angeles since their peaks in the early 90s.
So the surprising truth is that big cities are only a bit more dangerous than small ones. For a few decades it seemed otherwise, but this was mostly an artificial difference driven by higher concentrations of gasoline lead. Take that away, and it turns out that Los Angeles isn't much different from Modesto.

16 February 2011

Wayne LaPierre said that violent crime in jurisdictions that recognize the 'right to carry' is lower than in areas that prevent it. FALSE! from POLITIFACT 16FEB11

MORE LIES FROM THE NRA, big surprise there. I still want to know if a person with a carry permit can keep his/her gun on their person inside the NRA offices. I also want to see the restrictions on guns in government buildings done away with so the "playing field" is leveled so the politicians who feel it is OK to put us at risk of random gun violence face the same risk. This from PolitiFact...
The Truth-O-Meter Says:
National Rifle Association

"Across the board, violent crime in jurisdictions that recognize the Right to Carry is lower than in areas that prevent it."

National Rifle Association on Thursday, February 10th, 2011 in a speech by Wayne LaPierre at the Conservative Political Action Conference

Wayne LaPierre said that violent crime in jurisdictions that recognize the 'right to carry' is lower than in areas that prevent it.

Wayne LaPierre of the National Rifle Association delivered a stirring defense of gun ownership at the Conservative Political Action Conference in the wake of the mass shooting in Arizona.

"It's time to acknowledge what we know in our hearts to be true -- that the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun," he said. "Just knowing there's a good guy with a gun around -- a cop, a guard, a soldier … and, yes, a law-abiding citizen with a gun -- makes us feel safer … because we are safer."

LaPierre said it was time for a national "right to carry" law, a measure that many states already have adopted. Generally speaking, it means that law-abiding citizens have the "right to carry" guns as they go about their daily business. (There are typically a few exceptions, such as in government buildings and schools.)

"Right now, in the United States, 7 million law-abiding Americans legally carry a concealed firearm, 7 million in almost every state in the country," he said. "And across the board, violent crime in jurisdictions that recognize the Right to Carry is lower than in areas that prevent it. The whole flock is safer when the wolves can't tell the difference between the lions and the lambs."

It's a matter of opinion whether a national "right to carry" law is a good idea, but we were interested in his statement that "violent crime in jurisdictions that recognize the Right to Carry is lower than in areas that prevent it." So we decided to check it out.

We contacted the NRA and asked them about the statement, but we didn't hear back. We decided to begin with information from the NRA website, which claims that 40 states have "right to carry" laws, while 10 restrict it.

We should note that opinions may differ on whether a state has a "right to carry" law or not. The NRA says a state has a "right to carry" law if permits to carry are issued to applicants who meet uniform standards established by the state legislature. If state officials have the discretion to refuse individual applicants, then in the NRA's view, they're not "right to carry" states. The NRA identifies 10 states as lacking "right to carry" laws: California, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin.

We next turned to the FBI's crime statistics, looking particularly at the violent crime rate. This is a statistic that counts violent crimes per 100,000 inhabitants. We should note that the FBI warns people not to create ratings from these statistics, saying that rankings "provide no insight into the numerous variables that mold crime in a particular town, city, county, state, or region." We went ahead and created a state ranking anyway, knowing that it wouldn't necessarily establish a causal link between "right to carry" laws and a lower crime rate. At this point, we simply wanted to see if the statistics were consistent with what LaPierre said.

We found the the states without "right to carry" were spread out across the list, not bunched together at the top. The District of Columbia, which has strict gun control laws, ranked highest for violent crime. The other states ranked as follows: Delaware, No. 5; Maryland, No. 10; Illinois, No. 13; California, No. 17; Massachusetts, No. 18; New York, No. 24; New Jersey, No. 30; Hawaii, No. 36; Wisconsin, No. 39, and Rhode Island, No. 42.

We also couldn't help noticing that some states with laws that favor gun ownership placed at different points along the list. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence rates state gun laws, so we looked at the 14 states that had the weakest gun laws. Here, we also saw a wide variation in where the states ranked in terms of violent crime: Alaska, No. 6; Louisiana, No. 7; New Mexico, No. 8; Arkansas, No. 11; Oklahoma, No. 12; Missouri, No. 15; Arizona, No. 21; West Virginia, No. 32; Kentucky, No. 38; Montana, No. 41; Idaho, No. 44; Utah, No. 47; North Dakota, No. 48, and South Dakota, No. 49.

So using the 2009 data, we don't see any evidence that state gun laws correlate with violent crime rates one way or the other, at least not "across the board" as LaPierre suggested in his speech.

Still, there's a more in-depth way to study violent crime rates, using many sets of data over multiple years and controlling for external factors. The book More Guns, Less Crime, by John R. Lott, first published in 1998, makes a case that by using extensive data sets, one can see clear reductions in crime over many years in states and counties that have "right to carry" laws, and he has continued to make that case in new editions of the book. But Lott's work has also been critiqued as flawed by other academics, who say that relatively small adjustments to the data sets yield different results or that Lott doesn't account for other factors that could be affecting crime rates.

The National Academies of Sciences concluded in 2005 that current data do not allow for firm conclusions about how "right to carry" laws affect crime. We think it's worth quoting the conclusion from Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review:

"The literature on right-to-carry laws summarized in this chapter has obtained conflicting estimates of their effects on crime ... No link between right-to-carry laws and changes in crime is apparent in the raw data, even in the initial sample; it is only once numerous covariates are included that the negative results in the early data emerge. While the trend models show a reduction in the crime growth rate following the adoption of right-to-carry laws, these trend reductions occur long after law adoption, casting serious doubt on the proposition that the trend models estimated in the literature reflect effects of the law change. Finally, some of the point estimates are imprecise. Thus, the committee concludes that with the current evidence it is not possible to determine that there is a causal link between the passage of right-to-carry laws and crime rates."

Getting back to our rating. LaPierre said, "Across the board, violent crime in jurisdictions that recognize the Right to Carry is lower than in areas that prevent it." LaPierre could have used a qualifier here about studies that control for various effects, but he didn't: He said flat out that violent crime is lower in areas with "right to carry." We do not find that current crime statistics support this point. Some academics have said trends over time show that "right to carry" laws lower crime rates, but that argument is contested. There's certainly not straight-line correlation between states with "right to carry" laws and crime rates. LaPierre made it sound like the data clearly supported his view. They don't. We rate his statement False.
About this statement:
Published: Wednesday, February 16th, 2011 at 9:11 a.m.
Subjects: Crime, Guns
Sources:
National Rifle Association, Wayne LaPierre's remarks at CPAC, Feb. 10, 2011

NRA-ILA, Right to Carry 2010, April 22, 2010

NRA-ILA, The National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Bill, Jan. 12, 2009

The Legal Community Against Violence, Carrying Concealed Weapons, February 2008

The Legal Community Against Violence, Recent Developments in Federal & State Law (by Firearms Policy): Carrying Firearms

U.s. Department of Justice, FBI crime statistics, 2009, and a PolitiFact analysis of the statistics

Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, Brady Campaign State Scorecards: Most States Have Weak Gun Laws, Feb. 18, 2010

More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws, by John R. Lott, 2010

Stanford Law Review, "Shooting Down the 'More Guns, Less Crime," Hypothesis, by Ian Ayres & John J. Donohue III

Journal of Economic Studies, Understanding Why Crime Fell in the 1990s: Four Factors that Explain the Decline and Six that Do Not, by Steven D. Levitt, Winter 2004

Regulation, Torturing the Data? (A review of More Guns, Less Crime, 3rd edition), by Stan J. Liebowitz, Winter 2010

The National Academies, Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review and its conclusions on right to carry laws, 2005
Written by: Angie Drobnic Holan
Researched by: Angie Drobnic Holan
Edited by: Martha Hamilton
How to contact us: