Violent crime is up in America. Again.

Posted October 3, 2007 | 06:18 PM (EST)



stumbleupon :Violent crime is up in America.  Again.   digg: Violent crime is up in America.  Again.   reddit: Violent crime is up in America.  Again.   del.icio.us: Violent crime is up in America.  Again.

Now it's official.

According to the FBI's final crime statistics for 2006, violent crime is up for the second consecutive year, the first time that's happened in over 10 years. Gun crime in particular is surging nationwide, with an 8% increase in gun robberies and an almost 3% increase in gun assaults.

The numbers are much worse in America's small- and medium-sized cities, with gun robberies in cities of 25,000 to 50,000 people up twice the national rate at 16.2%, and in medium-sized cities (250,000 to 500,000 people) up a whopping 14.7%.

As the former mayor of Fort Wayne, Indiana (a Midwestern city with just under 250,000 citizens where the number of violent crimes actually dropped between 2005-2006), and as a former president of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, I know first-hand the challenges that cities and communities face when confronting the scourge of gun crime. Creating safer communities takes hard work, and success is no accident.

Neither is it any accident that weak gun policies at the Federal level have contributed to the current national violent crime trend: The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), responsible for the enforcement [pdf document] of our nation's gun laws, does not have the resources or effective tools it needs to stop the trafficking in illegal guns; there are gaps in the Brady background check law that allow prohibited purchasers - including the dangerously mentally ill and even suspected terrorists [pdf document] - to walk out of a gun store fully armed; and we have no Federal limits [pdf document] on how many dangerous weapons someone can buy at a time.

The President and Congress could do a great deal to help towns and cities across America in the fight to reduce gun crime and make their communities safer. In the short run, Congress can pass the NICS Improvement Act (H.R. 2640) [pdf document] - a common-sense bill designed to close the gap that allowed the Virginia Tech shooter to get his guns.

Supported by the Brady Campaign, strong gun law advocates like New York Sen. Charles Schumer and New York Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, and even the NRA, the bill is now stalled in the Senate by a single member, Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma. Every concerned American should contact their Senator to get this bill to the floor for a full vote as soon as possible.

Another step Congress can take is to enact the Administration's bill, sponsored by Sen. Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey and Rep. Peter King of New York, to close the terrorist gap in gun store purchases. There are documented cases [pdf document] of suspected terrorists buying guns in gun stores, but Federal authorities can't stop those sales under current law.

We shouldn't wait until another tragedy strikes us when we can take steps to close this terrorist gap today. Congress should pass the Lautenberg/King bill (S. 1237/H.R. 2074), and make it harder for terrorists to get firearms.

These are actions that could be taken this Fall to make us all safer. There is still much more left for us to do. We need to keep asking our elected leaders, and each other, "What will you do to reduce gun violence in America?"

(Note to readers: This entry, along with past entries, has been co-posted on bradycampaign.org/blog and the Huffington Post.)

Comments for this post are now closed

 

Comments
42
Pending Comments
0

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

Hint sample
View Comments:
Page: 1 2 Next › Last » (2 pages total)

Once again Paul presents statistics out of context to mislead others and support his agenda.

The current violent crime rate is 473.5, which is up from 469.0 in 2005 and 463 in 2004, BUT why don"t he mention the crime rate from 1987 to 2003? Could it be because our current violent crime rate is actually still MUCH lower than the rates from 1987 to 2003?

Well, let"s see. The crime rate in 1987 was 612.5 and steadily rose to a high of 758.2 in 1993. Then his rate began to steadily decline to a rate of 475.8 in 2003 and then 463.2 in 2004. So, while it is true that the crime rate has risen in 2005 and again in 2006, it is still lower that it has been from 1987 to 2004.

Let me say it another way. The lowest and second lowest crime rate just happen to have be in 2004 and 2005 (respectively), allowing him to point to a 2 year rise when he cites the crime rate in 2006. BUT, THE CRIME RATE PAUL SAYS HAS "SURGED" IS ACTUALLY THE 3RD LOWEST CRIME RATE BETWEEN 1987 and 2006.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 05:28 PM on 10/07/2007

Oh Paul, by the way....

According to your same source, http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_07.html, it seems as though murder victims with "rifles" has gone down since 2002. If that's the case, then why do you keep pushing for an assault weapon ban? Certainly "assault weapons" would be included in that category, correct? Where is this "growing problem" you keep citing?

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:38 PM on 10/04/2007

I'll have to disagree with those who correlate unemployment/poverty with the increase in violent crime. If there was a direct correlation, then why wasn't there more violent crime in the 20's in 30's than there is today? Society as a whole was significantly poorer in those times. There was a study done, and if i can find it again, i'll post it. But the basic concept was that, while violent crime is certainly more prevalent in poorer environments, that the demographic of those committing violent crime is evolving because of the breakdown of the family sphere. One parent households and no father figure in a child's life significantly hinders the child learning solid moral values and how to defuse confrontation. A fatherless child seeks approval from the streets and gangs. Their socio-economic status is simply a result of this poor upbringing, not the cause of the overall, larger problem.

But lost in translation is once again, Paul Helmke's erroneous assumption that the rise in violence has ANYTHING to do with an inanimate object. There certainly are more things we can do...like curbing recidivism, which is plaguing our society. But we all know that prosecuting criminals and keeping them incarcerated costs money, and we've seen and heard first hand from our politicians that they are not willing to provide funding for that. So the anti-rights crusaders continue their attempt at legislating away our individual rights that we've always had as humans, and reiterated in our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

When SCOTUS finally hears the Parker case and breaks the hearts of Paul Helmke, the BC, VPC, CeaseRights NJ, and the likes...maybe our politicians will be forced to pursue the correct avenues of crime prevention and reduction. In the interim, Paul and the rest will continue to scramble for public and political appeal toward gun control, effectively wasting our finite ecomomic resources which we could be channeling toward education and law enforcement.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:58 PM on 10/04/2007

Does any of the crime rate relate to:
1 the growing disparity between the rich and poor
2 the unwillingness of the ruling party to be subject to laws

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:49 AM on 10/04/2007

Federal gun policies, ATF resources and tools, and the Brady background check process have been around since long before 2006. Did they also contribute to prior *decreases* in the national violent crime trend? If so, why would this set of factors contribute to decreasing the trend at some points, then increasing the trend at another points?

The answer is, of course, this bizarre discrepancy doesn't really exist. While these factors on the whole certainly *always* contribute to decreasing the trend, by their very nature, violent crime trends are affected much more strongly by numerous factors other than them, and in near-totally unpredictable ways. Thus, the violent crime trend has gone down and up in the face of these factors, as you can plainly see if you just simply extend your violent crime trend chart well before 2006.

Enforcement of our nation's gun laws is imperative. Stopping the trafficking in illegal guns is a must. Halting prohibited purchasers is necessary. However, these things must only be done with due process and without blanketing the responsible, law-abiding citizenry under over-reaching laws. Due process may adjudicate someone as dangerously mentally ill, but where is the due process in someone being labeled "suspected terrorist" and having their rights taken away. If someone is a suspected terrorist, arrest them, present evidence in court, see if a conviction is obtainable, and if so then their rights may be restricted or removed.

Limits on how many "dangerous" weapons (aren't all weapons dangerous?) someone can buy at a time is ethically and practically fraught with real problems. In our system of respect for individual freedom and recognition of unenumerated rights being retained by individuals, it is a fact that a restriction or prohibition on individuals must be demonstrated as compelling and narrowly tailored. Start explaining. You have a lot to do and not unlimited time. Which weapons, how many at a time, and what is the argument that those choices are compelling and narrowly tailored with respect to taking them away as individual liberties?

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:54 AM on 10/04/2007

It's stalled because he wants to know who's going to pay for it.

Guilty until proven innocent seems to be the MO for the Brady Campaign when it comes to firearms.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:46 AM on 10/04/2007

Why do we get so emotional over this issue and why is it a left/right thing? We can refer to studies and obtain a better-than-your-gut-emotion level of knowledge about this.

The reality seems to be- where there are concealed-carry laws, meaning citizens can carry concealed handguns legally, and the barrier to gun ownership is low, violent crime goes down, controlling for other variables.

http://www2.lib.uchicago.edu/~llou/guns.html

I don't know how I feel about this, but I do know it doesn't matter. That's a little something called reality as-best-we-can-ascertain-it, and quite frankly, like what seems to be the fact that abortion causes a decrease in the crime rate a generation later, it is what it is.

If your goal is to have less violent crime, then apparently the thought that people around you (or in that house you were going to rob) MAY be armed and you don't it, tends to deter you from pulling your own gun and breaking the law.

That's at least plausible, and in fact is borne out in studies.

I have no gun. I want no gun. Apparently, I am getting taking a free ride on those that do living in a state with weak gun control. Huh.

Yes there are "studies" that prove what their authors only wanted to "prove", but that isn't science and that's not what shows us this.

Be free. Just know reality as well as you can and do as the evidence bids you. Anything else is bondage.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:59 AM on 10/04/2007

I think the end result of this is going to look
a lot like 'america, the beautiful' converted into 'america, the gated community'...

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:05 AM on 10/04/2007

We shouldn't wait until another tragedy strikes us when we can take steps to close this terrorist gap today. Congress should pass the Lautenberg/King bill (S. 1237/H.R. 2074), and make it harder for terrorists to get firearms.

As usual Paul and his associates collapse the distinction between being a 'suspected' terrorist vs a terrorist. Being a suspect has no consequence for that individuals rights, privileges, responsibilities or status in this society. At most it is a designation used by LE to seek resource to discover additional information about that individual. Being a terrorist will result in immediate arrest as well as a complete firearms prohibition. These characters want a firearms ban on mere 'suspects' by referring to them as actually being terrorists. Usual anti-gun mush talk.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 10:42 PM on 10/03/2007

Violent crime is up in America for the same reason as always. Irresponsible parents. Mostly irresponsible black parents, "nurtured" by the welfare state, so that black men leave their children with impunity, just as Daniel Patrick Moynihan predicted ages ago. Create a Guaranteed Annual Income and the problem will dissipate, or just contine the facile rhetoric about guns..

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:16 PM on 10/03/2007

That's probably black on black crime. Likewise with Mexican on Mexican crime. And methhead cracker on methhead cracker crime. It has nothing to do with race and everything to do with the economic times.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:01 AM on 10/04/2007

Wow, are you always this racist - black parents, huh?

Actually, nothing has changed in the black community and neither gun laws nor gun law enforcement has changed in the past few years. What has changed is the tension on the noose around the neck of low income people. Wages and salaries haven't gone anywhere but lookey here:

a gallon of gas is now 3 bucks
a gallon of milk is almost 5 bucks in some states
a decent steak at the supermarket is about 9 bucks a pound
and there's this little thing happening with the home mortgage business......

Throughout history, economic pressures have influenced crime. I suspect that contrary to Paul Hemke's blog, this is the root cause of the current crime rate increase - ya think?

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 10:09 PM on 10/03/2007

The fact that you leap to the conclusion that my comment is racist is an example of the lazy reasoning associated with so much of the left. Never mind that what I said is true, the illegitimacy rates in the black community are sad, at best, and much of that can be attributed to negative incentives. Is it something inherent in being black? I certainly don't think so. What's more, I think if everyone, EVERYONE, were provided a guaranteed annual income, the problem would be cut in half faster than you can bat an eye, but that would deprive too many "liberals" of their high horse to ride on, which is more important to most of them than giving black men and women an income with no strings attached, because that string is ridden by too many bureaucrats more concerned with themselves than the commuinity they ostensibly serve. Spare your stupid comment about racism for your friends who strike a pose and little else when it comes to curing what ails the black community: again, a pile of feckless negative incentives. If you care for their welfare, gurantee them a certain income a year, an idea suppoprted by thoughtful liberals (Moynihan) and conservatives alike.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 10:32 PM on 10/03/2007

To further back up my argument, illegitimacy rates have remained basically constant since 1992 (around 70%), yet we had the LARGEST drop in violent crime in history from 1992-2002.

So how is the illegitimacy rate to blame when it changed less than 2% during this period?

"The good news from the federal government's preliminary birthrate data for 2002 is that the black illegitimacy rate has not only stopped getting worse, but it is now in a gradual decline.

Last year, 68.0 percent of the black women who had babies were unmarried, down from 68.4 percent in 2001. The peak was 70.4 percent in 1994."

http://www.isteve.com/2003_Black_Illegitimacy_Rate_Declines.htm

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 10:42 AM on 10/04/2007

Furthermore, if the illegitimacy rate is now declining, why then is the violent crime rate going up?

There are far too many holes in your theory.

Granted, fatherless households are an issue, but the facts simply don't back up your premise.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 10:45 AM on 10/04/2007

"The fact that you leap to the conclusion that my comment is racist is an example of the lazy reasoning associated with so much of the left."

No -- its because you don't know what you are talking about.

Crime dropped dramatically (to a 30 year record low) under Clinton and it rose once again under Bush. The illegitimacy rate is about the same now as it was then, so obviously that's not the main issue.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm

However, I won't disagree with your point about income because likewise under Clinton, the black middle class grew exponentially, but under Bush we are once again seeing the "the rich get richer and the poor get nothing" -- just like in the 80s and early (pre-Clinton) 90s when Reagan and Bush were in office.

So the next time you want to bitch about "liberals", check your FACTS and make sure crime isn't rising under Republican conservatives first.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:28 AM on 10/04/2007

Why don't you explore those statistics and get back to me on who is doing the killing? We know, don't we? I'll give you a hint. The vast majority grew up without a father in the home. Why? We know that too, don't we? It has zero to do with who the POTUS is and everything to do with failed social policies. Again, the likeliest cure. A GAI. But, as usual, you'd rather whine than do anything, especially to help a suffering segment of the population that you depend upon to keep pursuing an array of failed policies. There is a solution, an apolitical one, and everyone ignores it.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:54 AM on 10/04/2007

Here's the link to the story in full.

You talk about everyone "ignoring" the solution -- make sure you take your own advice and don't ignore what actually works.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gangs28sep28,1,3575709.story?track=rss&ctrack=1&cset=true

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:45 AM on 10/04/2007

I'm black, grew up without a father in the home and never committed any violent crime.

Your blind accusations reveal the weakness of your argument -- rather than confront the facts in the link I provided, you instead go on and on about "failed policies".

The bottom line is that when Clinton was in office crime hit a RECORD LOW -- and it had nothing to do with "illegitimate birth rates" and everything to do with an improved economy and better law enforcement.

Right now, homicides in Los Angeles are likewise at their lowest since the 1970s -- again, it has nothing to do with the "illegitimate birth rates" but instead, everything to do with the cops working with ex-gang members to stop the violence.

"Los Angeles has seen a significant decline in homicides so far this year -- including a 50% drop in killings in some South L.A. neighborhoods, such as Watts -- as police embarked on a new strategy involving asking ex-gang members to help prevent violence.

The city got through the traditionally violent summer months with 167 gang-related homicides, compared with 214 for the same period last year. Homicides citywide are now at levels not seen since 1970.

And in its most radical shift, the LAPD is putting aside decades of suspicion and turning for help to gang intervention workers, many of whom were gang members.

"For the first time, we're requiring captains to call the gang interventionists, give them the word on the shooting and get out there and avert another homicide," Deputy Police Chief Charlie Beck said.

"We are pretty good at solving homicides, but we are trying to get better at preventing the next homicide."

You THEORIZE about knowing both the problem and the solution, but I've given two PROVEN examples that have been effective.

When you can do the same, then you might have a point.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:44 AM on 10/04/2007

If you think having a father in a home takes away the envy and the outrage when a poor inner city kid sees a rich suburban kid driving around in a fifty thousand dollar car or sporting a 200 dollar ipod whilst strolling through an Abercrombie and Finch - than like the rest of the right wing Anne Coulter wackjobs - you're living in a state of denial. When people are given the opportunity to better themselves - they're less likely to engage in criminal activity. When they see rich bastards making it on the backs of poor people - they're much more likely to be enraged and take part in crime. If college is unaffordable and the only jobs available to you are dead enders working slave hours for a large corporation - how do you think the average person is going to respond? It's about balance, fairness, and giving people a chance. When they're all struggling to survive instead of thrive - it always has the potential to get a little ugly. It's that simple.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:06 AM on 10/04/2007

Having only one parent in the home is only ONE factor of many, and it is not even the most important one given how many white kids grow up in single-parent homes as well due to divorce.

Moreover, many latino kids have both parents at home and still get involved in drugs, gangs, and crime.

People who assume that they have the answer to problems that they don't even deal with on a day to day basis are kidding themselves. I've seen so many "experts" on black people and the "ghetto" -- people who have rarely if ever even set foot in the same "ghetto" that they speak about -- on forums that its ridiculous.

You are right, villa, its about materialism and envy more than anything else.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:51 AM on 10/04/2007
Page: 1 2 Next › Last » (2 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

You must be logged in to reply to this comment. Log in


 
 
Bloggers Index›
Read All Posts by
Paul Helmke›
 

 Site  Web ask.com