One factor in the shocking increase in violence is very clear: “The rise in violence in 2020 appears to be almost entirely a rise in gun violence, rather than a more general increase in all forms of crime,” the Princeton sociologist Patrick Sharkey wrote to me in an email.
In an average year, guns account for roughly two-thirds of American homicides, but in 2020, 77 percent of murders were shootings. More Americans are carrying guns, both legally and illegally, than they have in the past. Firearms sales shot up last year, and so did police retrievals of illegal guns.
“You can ask law-abiding people or you can ask people who do not abide by the law, ‘Why are you armed with a firearm?’ ‘I need to protect myself,’” says Richard Rosenfeld, a criminologist at the University of Missouri at St. Louis. That creates a vicious cycle: More people carrying guns tends to result in more shootings, which in turn heightens the desire to carry a weapon for protection. When crime is decreasing, this dynamic helps it continue to fall, but once it begins to rise, the feedback loop turns ugly. Several analyses have found that murders have continued to rise this year, though not as sharply as last year.
— David A. Graham in America Is Having a Violence Wave, Not a Crime Wave
yikes. so it went from 66% to 77% and all the while more people are carrying illegally. no wonder more people are carrying legally as well, i don’t see a large faction of the legal carriers as adding to these numbers much.
In a crisis situation involving violence directed towards you and yours Princeton sociologist Patrick Sharkey and crime guy Richard Rosenfeld will be unarmed and clearly even more worthless than they already are…by all accounts.
If good citizens were unarmed and only the bad guys had guns America would be like Afghanistan after Jim Crow Gun Control joe and his democRat Party ilk left billions in US Munitions behind for taliban terrorists.
What those two sneaky gun control bozos and their democRat Party ilk are doing is…Instead of any straight talk and having jack booted thugs go door to door to confiscate firearms it’s a soft, gentle approach, “Try to reason with them first.” Show them guns are the problem, show them statistics that make guns the enemy, throw everything gun into one bowl and mix it all up into one big turd sandwich designed to serve to those who stand for nothing and fall for anything. Once people are seen coming onboard with Gun Control others will monkey see monkey do.
Make it all about Guns Gun Guns. Never mind the dope and demoCrap that is found between the ears of 99 9/10% of those who criminally misuse firearms, bricks, bats, knives, vehicles, etc.
Bottom line…What Patrick Sharkey and his pal Richard Rosenfeld need is a History Lesson. A History Lesson that Clearly Confirms Gun Control in any shape, matter or form is a Racist and Nazi Based Agenda.
Debbie W.,
“In a crisis situation involving violence directed towards you and yours Princeton sociologist Patrick Sharkey and crime guy Richard Rosenfeld will be unarmed and clearly even more worthless than they already are…”
That their was funny! And true!
If what our learned academics are saying is true, I still don’t care.
Let us not forget when Glen Beck was still with FOX news he was interviewing then senator Joe Biden. During the interview Biden started bragging about shooting rifle off the upstairs deck, scared his neighbors but he thought it was great fun.
You’re confusing cause and effect. When it comes to crime, racism, climate change, illegal immigration, or other important issues, effects cause causes, not the other way around.
Jason…….Seems like he has the tail wagging the dog. If he would do an in depth analysis , he would seperate defensive shooting from criminal violence.
“If he would do an in depth analysis , he would seperate defensive shooting from criminal violence.”
“Analysis” starts establishing a data set. That set is the result of confirmation bias, which establishes that which will be subjected to analysis. If the first data set is not sufficiently skewed to outcome, a different/enhanced data, analysis will be applied in order to create an accommodating data set. The desired data set is then queried using criteria that fit the per-determined analysis.
In certain circles, that analysis and data set are used to “prove” a proposition. The more difficult (and oft avoided) technique is to establish a proposition, then try, via “analysis” of a data set, to disprove the proposition.
Sam, in other words, figures can lie, and liars can figure.
Yep. Correlation does not equal causation.
And those who have legally bought firearms are not the ones using firearms illegally.
I doubt any of the esteemed academics are even aware of NICS because it does not match their perceptions.
the FBI just lost a gun..[Glock 19].. in Pittsburgh…when it was left in a car…they seem to be worried about it falling into the hands of the “untrained”
Work for 2-3 h0urs in y0ur spare time and get paid 1200 0n y0ur bank acc0unt every week…
Get m0re inf0rmation 0n f0ll0wing site… 𝐖𝐨𝐫𝐤𝐉𝐨𝐢𝐧.𝐭𝐤
The people that will use a gun to end an argument will be carrying a gun regardless of the laws. Where is all this ‘gun violence’ happening? In blue cities.
If you want violent crime to decrease you need to rid the country of the real crime syndicate. The democratic party.
jwm,
“The people that will use a gun to end an argument will be carrying a gun regardless of the laws.”
Something tells me that you have had close personal experiences in your lifetime with “rough and tumble” people who are prone to ending arguments in an extremely impolite manner–more accurately stated, “with extreme prejudice.”
Ivory Tower professors have no such experience nor insights. The most intense incident that they have ever observed or experienced up-close-and-personal is a photocopier jamming. As a result, Ivory Tower professors haven’t the slightest inkling how incredibly volatile some people can be. Having no such insights, of course they dismiss out-of-hand any reason to be armed when out in public.
Because the esteemed academics, like true Progressives, take the world as they wish it should be and definitely not as it really is.
These people know absolutely nothing about us and they don’t care to know. They don’t know that legally gun toting OFWGs are the least likely demographic to misuse a weapon and if they were shown the statistics they’d reject them in favor of their pre-existing prejudice. Accepting truth would mean exercising a little humility and their religion (liberalism) is based on believing you’re superior to others.
Gov,
The word liberalism is a misnomer these days. The political left are no longer the historical liberals they are communists. The democrat party (communist party USA) adopted all parts of the communist agenda decades ago.
In a political context ‘liberal’ means to push for change in institutions, as opposed to ‘conservative’ which means to resist change and perhaps push to restore old institutions. The founding fathers were liberal when they broke away from King George III and wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The Bolsheviks were liberal when they overthrew Czar Nicholas II and imposed a 70 year reign of terror on their country. Whether liberal or conservative is good or bad depends entirely on the existing institutions and those intended to replace them.
The institutions the founding fathers founded have been in place for over 2 centuries so it’s clearly conservative to support them and liberal to push for changes to them. It was FDR who rebranded the American ‘progressive’ movement as liberal and the name has stuck for 8 decades. So in America a liberal is a communist.
The term liberal has been a tripping point for many.
This is the best explanation I’ve seen.👍
People had a bad taste for progressives at the time after Woodrow Wilson, while the liberal was still seen as a good thing. So the Left hid behind the liberal name. So now liberal is synonymous with big government here even though the definition of a liberal is someone that favors small, unobtrusive government.
Someone who favors small, unobtrusive government is a ‘classical liberal’. Or in America a far right conservative.
I think you mean FAR-RIGHT Nazi!!
Don’t forget ‘racist’.
wittle d 🤪
Two more times and “it” appears.
All of these comments highlight the most pernicious, heinous, and destructive tactic of “Liberals”, a.k.a. the Far Left, a.k.a. Progressives, a.k.a. Communists, a.k.a. (fill in the blank): hijacking and redefining the meaning of words, phrases, and labels.
In other words the Far Left knows that they cannot achieve victory via widespread support. So they resort to stealth tactics and sneak their agenda into society and institutions.
“All of these comments highlight the most pernicious, heinous, and destructive tactic of “Liberals”,…: hijacking and redefining the meaning of words, phrases, and labels.”
And?
Control the language, and you control the conversation. Control the language, and you control the argument.
Control the language, and the opponent is left sputtering, “Not fair!”.
Sounds like a good tactic for changing a culture, eh?
I’d add the use of euphemisms. It’s not an abortion but a ‘choice’, they’re not illegal aliens but ‘undocumented’, etc.
Hence their insistence on disarming everyone “for their own good”. Progressives sincerely believe that it is absolutely reasonable to use force to compel others to acquiesce to their ideas- because they “know” they’re right, and anyone who disagrees must necessarily be wrong. The monopoly of force is what is in the Left’s best interest.
It’s annoyingly difficult to realize your goals through the use of force when those you are attempting to coerce retain the ability to resist you with equal force. Therein lies the importance of guaranteeing that power must reside in the hands of the people- not in government or any other adversary to freedom.
So more people carrying legally contributes to more people carrying illegally so we need to stop people carrying legally. Kind of like saying more people driving the speed limit contributes to more people not driving the speed limit so we need to stop people from driving the speed limit. Got it.
This is just another attempt by a leftist to deflect blame from blue cities and blue States with blue attorney generals. If you want crime to decrease then you put criminals in jail where they can not harm normal people.
A trigger pull in self defense is not someone engaging in violence.
Criminals using guns in the commission of a crime IS a crime.
This is not rocket science but obviously isn’t commonly understood.
well, actually it is engaging in violence. The definition of violence also includes “behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.”
When you pull that trigger in self-defense you are using behavior “involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone” this type of “physical force” in terms of firearms use is called “deadly force”.
the act of self defense that results in a death is actually a crime called “homicide” and if it was really self-defense its called, generally, “justified homicide” and the act is “excused” (in the eyes of the law) and you do not face prosecution.
You do not just get to shoot someone in self-defense and have the police show up and say “yep, self defense” then its all over. It has to be determined by an adjudicative process if it was “homicide” or “justifiable homicide”, some times this simply means the DA will not prosecute thus no charges. In most cases the DA will have presented it a the grand jury and they are the ones actually determining if it was justifiable or not by returning a true bill or not when its presented. But sometimes it takes a judge to say its “justifiable” and sometimes it may go to a jury trial.
But none the less, pulling that trigger in self defense is an act of violence.
Legal gun owner’s and carriers are some of the most vetted folks in America. This cracker Graham is a doofus…
This is what you get when stupid people don’t know the difference between good guys with guns and bad guys with guns.
They hate it when someone brings that up. Just like everything else on the Left, they refuse to acknowledge reality when it conflicts with their preferred narrative. Notice the sneering whenever they say good guy with a gun.
“You do not just get to shoot someone in self-defense and have the police show up and say “yep, self defense” then its all over. It has to be determined by an adjudicative process if it was “homicide” or “justifiable homicide”, some times this simply means the DA will not prosecute thus no charges. In most cases the DA will have presented it a the grand jury and they are the ones actually determining if it was justifiable or not by returning a true bill or not when its presented.” What if it never gets referred to the DA or the equivalent?
What if it never gets referred to the DA or the equivalent?
In most cases in “FREE” America OBVIOUS self defense situations are never charged… Not so much in Socialist “left leaning” jurisdictions where nearly ALL gun use is suspect until proven otherwise…
“the act of self defense that results in a death is actually a crime called “homicide” ”
The act of self defense that results in a death is homicide, but not a crime, except in Soros funded jurisdictions.
I guess what they’re saying is if someone assaults you…and you produce a gun…they’re likely to respond in kind…thereby upping the ante…
What part of “self-defense” do you not understand????
If someone is trying to rob me/mug me/break into my house/etc. – THEY made the choice to break the law. They had an option not to do that. They chose to do it, KNOWING it was illegal/immoral/unethical/wrong.
If you approach me or my family with criminal intent, and you do not break off your attach when you realize that I intend to defend myself? You brought the consequences on yourself.
Come at me with a knife, a gun, a club, with the intent to do harm? I will drop you in your tracks, and worry about the consequences later. I KNOW what will happen if I don’t stop you; there are a panoply of possibilities if I do. Being a rational human, I will choose the known over the unknown.
Is this somehow a mystery to you? And if so, why???
of course the counter to that is it makes your use of a firearm to defend yourself more justifiable…but that can work both ways…
“the act of self defense that results in a death is actually a crime called ‘homicide'”
No. Homicide in and of itself is not a crime. Many forms of homicide are crimes; some are not.
“You can ask law-abiding people or you can ask people who do not abide by the law, ‘Why are you armed with a firearm?’
Using a gun for personal protection is not a crime and killing someone while protecting yourself is not murder whether or not you are legally in possession of the firearm… Most of the rising violent crime numbers are in cities that were already at or near top of the charts like Chicago, NYC, DC, LA, Detroit, St. Louis, Atlanta and what ELSE do they have in common? Oh yeah, they are all run by Dims that have slashed their police budgets and have prosecutors that are refusing to charge MOST criminals…
The ones who WILL be charged, prosecuted, and sentenced to the full extent of the law are those who choose to defend themselves instead of submitting to social justice and atoning for their historic crimes.
The ones who WILL be charged, prosecuted, and sentenced to the full extent of the law are those who choose to defend themselves
Maybe in YOUR Socialist/Police State but in my world the rule of Law and the Constitution usually prevail, not that there are NEVER failures but I’ll take my chances especially with the groups of pro-self defense County Sheriffs that surround me and State laws that support my right to self defense…
Progressive DAs will want to make their careers on setting examples.
And I was using sarcasm.
Personally I think Progressivism is a cancer on society.
Don’t have any “progressive” DAs around me… Could potentially be in the vicinity of one when my upcoming road trip takes me near Atlanta… The rest of the ride will be in “friendly” country…
The meek shall inherit the earth.
I think that means the worms.
The worms crawl in
The worms crawl out
The worms play pinochle on your snout
By the time the meek get to inherit the earth there will be little left that’s worth having.
Others have touched on this, but the problem with these studies… or at least the ones reporting on this… is that data is left out, either unintentionally or intentionally (most likely the latter, but trying to give the benefit of the doubt). The study as it is reported states that the crime wave is happening all over the United States. What it doesn’t say is if it is happening in primarily the big cities or also happening in smaller towns. I’ve seen reports that say the rise is happening in States that supported Biden and States that supported Trump equally. What is not said is where specifically. Take Texas for instance, many if not most the big cities are liberal, but Texas was still Trumps. So if the crime is predominately in the big cities, then they could still claim it is even between liberal and conservatives but not telling the whole story. This is why we have the quote: “There are lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics. Ultimately, stats can be used by anybody to make any point they want… by how they word things.
Once again, complaining about legal gun owners, with absolutely no plan for dealing with the criminal element, and/or gangs.
Somehow disarming legal gun owners is the key to reducing violence among the non-law abiding.
The only plan coming from the Left is more power. If anyone tries to call them on anything, those people are either canceled or they’re labeled a racist, at which point they go hide under the nearest table cowering in fear.
No mention of the particular demographic that commits the most violence.
I call B S on the violence is only happening in America. Seems the whole world is a pressure cooker.
Riots, shootem ups, discontent, almost every nation.
Nope just America has a violence problem. And that problem is gunms.
Disarm the law abiding and violence goes down? And weman wouldn’t get raped if they just said yes either.
Making progress, not hardly.
Here’s how to end the cycle of gun violins. First, give the bad guys space to destroy. After they do, defund the police. Then cut every arrestee loose on no bail. Finally, blame everything on the people who didn’t do it. Utopia ensues!
“Here’s how to end the cycle of gun violins.”
Love it !
Don’t issue a correction.
Nothing to correct. It was intentional.
“Nothing to correct. It was intentional.”
Even better !
Didn’t the Talking Heads do a song called “Sax and Violins”?
I love violins – and also violas and cellos. Perhaps we can bring in some woodwinds and brass?
Brass? What about Coppers?
Between morning paper sins and waves of violins.
It said they found him dead.
His bow had made him bad friends.
Hate to burst anyone’s bubble here, but, the overwhelming majority of those who purchased their guns through legal channels and methods are not involved in criminal uses of firearms.
Next is the foolish idea of blaming the tool used. By the same skewed logic of the anti gun crowd, we should ban cars to prevent drunk driving, and ban forks to control obesity.
I’ve owned a lot of firearms in my lifetime. Never once has a gun ever pulled itself from storage, loaded itself, wandered out on the street, and robbed, murdered, carjacked, or threatened anyone. In every instance of violence where a gun was used, it took a human to use said weapon. Until you deal with the human element, you can regulate, ban, background check, limit, and defame guns and legal gun owners, until you turn blue, and not solve the problem. Arrest, prosecute, and imprison those who commit the crimes of violence. Deal with the underlying issues that cause people to consider crime as a viable lifestyle. Stop glorifying crime and violence in popular culture/entertainment. Because it isn’t the hardware causing the problem.
are not involved in criminal uses of firearms.
No shit…
Typical liberal response, blame the victim!! When one of us proects ourselves with a firearm, it’s called a defensive action, not a phukin murder!!! We’re just doing what fools like that wont, even when their own loved ones are affected.
“In an average year, guns account for roughly two-thirds of American homicides, but in 2020, 77 percent of murders were shootings.”
What is the specific definition of “homicides” that the author is using in that statement? Does that include justifiable homicide (e.g. righteous self-defense)? Or was the author only referring to “murder” as he/she uses later in the sentence?
If the author is conflating justifiable homicides with murder, then there could very well be an uptick in the total number of all homicides (which includes both murder and justifiable homicide) where the “instigator” used a firearm–as a direct result of more law-abiding people carrying firearms for righteous self-defense. And that would be fine, not problematic.
So good guys and bad are both carrying for protection and this somehow makes a cycle of violence? Yea i guess one guy’s gun just randomly “goes off” and a gunfight starts.
This article does not back up it’s “ cycle theory “ which should be easy to back up IF it where true.
Secondly notice he does not even mention bail reform. If you ask the POLICE in many areas they will tell you that changes to the bail system allowing low bails for offenders with multiple violent felonies has caused an increase in violent crime.
“ More people carrying guns tends to result in more shootings” he says without producing any evidence or data to support his claim. If the data was checked, I believe one would find that most of those new purchases will wind up in a nightstand drawer or safe (and may never be used unless the need for home protection warrants) AND the law-abiding citizens that legally purchased their firearms are NOT significantly adding to the total “shootings” he refers to – unless he counts legitimate defensive use a shooting too. But, I defer because data needs to support my statement as well.
As a criminologist, he should know better than to generalize except I’m sure the intent is an anti-2A sentiment.
The problem with this “analysis,” and where it fails, is that it considers too narrow a data set, looking only at homicides in 2019, then looking at the number in 2020 along side the surge in buying. Looking at a larger data set, say the last ten years, would show that there has been a long term rise in the number of guns during a period when violent crime and homicides were dropping–the exact opposite of the conclusion that they wish to draw, i.e., that more guns equals more gun crime. The “circle of violence” theory is not supported by the larger data set. Not that they would admit that….
@Nero “…diction, not grammar…” Wolfe ”
“Sam, in other words, figures can lie, and liars can figure.”
Now, that is harsh. Was trying to be dignified and respectful; rising above the common.
And you saw right through me.
No, it is a high compliment. One of my favorite profs would wax eloquent on the insidious ways of statisticians, much like you did. He would then summarize his statement by reciting that aphorism.
Another favorite prof would say that the primary job of the teacher is to get the hay out of the barn and down to where the cows could get at it.
This was at the edge of whenever they began to stop teaching useful things. I caught the tail end of some of the good stuff.
“I caught the tail end of some of the good stuff.”
Congrats on that.
I had some teachers in the ’80s who would be fired if they taught today. We had some class discussions that went down rabbit holes that are now verboten.
you got that right…and i’d be one of them…I was controversial even back then…putting up a large confederate flag behind my desk, for example…the idea was to promote discussion…and it did…
More thugs carrying guns means more shootings. Correction applied. (In my part of the world I have yet to see a legal gun owner or CCW holder arrested for a violent crime. Yet every single thug or drug dealer arrest also has felon in possession of a (stolen) firearm as one of the charges.)
Statistics mean nothing when it comes to “should we respect a constitutionally protected right?”
The right is fundamental, primary and unalienable, no matter what numbers you crunch.
The rule of thumb that answers any questions comes to us from SFPD Detective Harry Callahan:
“There’s nothing wrong with shooting as long as the right people get shot.”
Unassailably logical, and unanswerable.
Game, Set, Match.
their primary thrust is that less guns equal less gun crime…but that wouldn’t make you any less vulnerable…
“their primary thrust is that less guns equal less gun crime…but that wouldn’t make you any less vulnerable…”
Their primary thrust makes sense…on the surface; no guns, no gun crime. However, “no guns” means in places “they” frequent. Guns in crime-ridden places are just fine, because “they” don’t go to crime ridden places.
As long as the democrats write laws and elect lawyers that protect the criminal element of society, nothing will change and crime will continue to go up!
People kill people guns don’t kill people their looping all the suicides in with gun violence and 97% of all murders are committed with hands feet and objects not guns
These gun control addicts, politicians academics who keep funding and fabricating crisis and statistics along with their hyped misinterpretations are all out for one thing – a gun-less America. That has to be their objective for they never have an original working idea of how to stop the criminals from acquiring weapons and never say a word about getting illegal weapons off the streets, nor about the cities and states which early release criminals from jail, or sheepish prosecutors who fail to prosecute criminals to the full extent of the law. They do not know how to stop the criminals and they only see the weapon not the person behind the weapon.
Their goal is to make everyone with a gun (other than their chosen “enforcers”) a criminal, the “enemy”, a threat to society- de facto domestic terrorists. This is how they think they’ll ensure they have a monopoly on the use of force- therefore guaranteeing whatever they say goes.
This can only happen if the people give their power away to them. It’s distressing to see just how many americans are willing to do just that, but real Americans will stop these enemies of freedom from dismantling our Constitutional Republic.
It’s up to us, folks. We did not start this- but we sure as hell will finish it. If that’s the way they want to play it…
“They do not know how to stop the criminals a…”
Is it bad to not know how to do something you don’t want to do?
If we lived in a world that knew no crime, the Leftdemists would invent crime.
Statistically speaking, and let’s pull FBI statistics on that one: what came first the chicken or the egg?
Did the amount of gun sold come first or did the crime wave cost increase in gun sales?
The article lumps legitimate self-defense with a gun in the same category with the criminal use of a gun for statistical purposes in tabulating ‘gun crimes’. They are two distinct and separate parameters. Legitimate use of a firearm for self-defense is NOT a crime. Neither is justifiable homicide. Illegally killing or wounding someone with a gun IS a crime. Just because more people have been shot and killed doesn’t mean that there is an increase in gun crimes. it could be that more criminals are being shot by law-abiding citizens in self-defense.
“The article lumps legitimate self-defense with a gun in the same category with the criminal use of a gun for statistical purposes in tabulating ‘gun crimes’. ”
First, the anti-gunner children’s crusade considers any use of a gun to be a crime.
Second, in the last 60yrs there has grown an addiction to not being patient enough to understand most anything; “bottom line” mentality.
Third, if you can’t make your point in less than 144/240 characters, your point isn’t worth much; is unimportant.
Fourth, “People are not persuaded by the depth of your logic, but by the height of your passion.” (passion = emotion)
Fifth, belief in truth over facts is a winning campaign.
Sixth, the majority of the famed anti-gun luminaries do not live anywhere near a crime-ridden neighborhood. Thus, the people to be feared are not criminals, but law abiding souls who look normal, yet are always on the cusp of “snapping”, and shooting everyone in sight.
Seventh, you are dealing with the third generation of children raised to remain children all their lives.
Arguing facts, logic and data can never change an anti-gunners mind (let’s not divert ourselves with the mythological unicorn anti-gunner, here and there, who does have a change of thought. These people are not numerous enough to change voting habits such that the largest majority of people will become defenders of the Second Amendment, nor freedoms in general.
Does this also include police-involved shootings and legitimate self defense homicides? All “murders” are homicides, not all homicides are murder.
Comments are closed.