Readers may have noticed that we review “gun policy” studies regularly. Those clamoring for federal funding for gun policy research should set themselves up a Google Scholar alert, but not everything we want to highlight is directly related to gun policy. Crime is a complex issue and criminals are – shockingly – at the root of “gun crime”.
Studies and position papers published by doctors or medical professionals call for a public health approach to reducing “gun violence” but their policy suggestions are always focused on law-abiding gun owners – and their recommendations omit any sort of law enforcement component when they write about having a conversation to determine the path forward.
“More COPS, less crime” is a new study published in The Journal of Public Economics that looks explicitly at the effect of law enforcement on crime. Steven Mello, a PhD candidate in Economics at Princeton University, used the resurgence in funding for the Community Oriented Policing Service (COPS) hiring program under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act as a natural experiment to estimate the causal effect of police on crime.
He found that each additional police officer hired prevented four violent crimes and 15 property crimes. Mello attributes the decrease in crime to a deterrence effect additional law enforcement officers have rather than an increase in arrest rate.
What makes Mello’s paper so interesting is the built-in experiment. Less than $20 million was appropriated for the COPS program each year between 2005-2008. As the recession set in, the program was revitalized with a billion-dollar earmark to prevent an increase in crime as economic conditions worsened (and to preserve law enforcement jobs). Grants were awarded based on fiscal need and crime scores determined by the COPS office with requirements to ensure every state received funding and to prioritize large jurisdictions.
As Mello notes, “Unsurprisingly, higher-scoring cities are larger, poorer, and have significantly higher crime rates.” The grants covered 100% of entry-level salary and benefits for new or rehired officers for three years.
The key finding is that “Among violent crimes, the results are negative and statistically significant for murder, rape, and robbery, while the estimate is not significant for assault.” Mello’s findings for murder are limited by the variability in the murder rate, his findings imply that “one life can be saved by hiring about 9.5 new police officers.”
Mello goes on to discuss his findings in terms of cost-benefit, finding that each officer contributes $352,000 in social benefit (based on crime reduction) – well above the point at which the additional officer would be considered cost-effective.
Mello’s findings offer a quantitative contribution to the common-sense conviction that police officers reduce crime – and not just by locking everyone up. Mello may follow in the footsteps of John Donohue and other anti-gun researchers, but we have no qualms with his findings here.
Police fight crime, criminals break the law. Add more police and crime falls. It makes sense. Just as it makes sense to focus “gun violence” solutions on criminals instead of law-abiding gun owners.
This article originally appeared at nraila.org and is reprinted here with permission.
I prefer it’s less formal title, “Well no shit Sherlock.” But that wouldn’t sound as authoritative when published.
I was gonna go with, “Duh ?”.
SuprisedPikachu.jpg would have worked as well.
We need a way to up-vote comments. Andrew deserves one here.
“We need a way to up-vote comments. Andrew deserves one here.”
This works: “+1”
Quite possibly the most unscientific garbage I have ever read. Do I even have to mention the correlation-causation fallacy? How about the fact that crime rates have been declining anyway (an oft-cited rebuttal to “assault weapons” bans)? What about the fact that nearly 40% of cops are domestic abusers? To say nothing Iof the real crimes they commit during unconstitutional detainments, enforcement of gun control laws, drug laws, registration laws, licensing, amd other victimless “crimes.”
Salty, just so we can judge the veracity of your facts. Where did you get them?
“How about the fact that crime rates have been declining anyway (an oft-cited rebuttal to “assault weapons” bans)?”
That really wouldn’t explain why crime goes up and down over a 5 year period in particular cities coinciding with police funding.
“What about the fact that nearly 40% of cops are domestic abusers?”
-Oh… you’re just a dummy. Okay.
“To say nothing Iof the real crimes they commit during unconstitutional detainments, enforcement of gun control laws, drug laws, registration laws, licensing, amd other victimless “crimes.”
– You sound like you need to move to some unincorporated part of the ocean where you can decide all the laws for yourself.
“You sound like you need to move to some unincorporated part of the ocean where you can decide all the laws for yourself.”
Perhaps he already did. It would explain his username.
Do you realize what America is supposed to be?
They really, honestly don’t. One of the commenters is a retired pig himself, so go figure.
That really wouldn’t explain why crime goes up and down over a 5 year period in particular cities coinciding with police funding.
Except this study only gets that by cherry picking. The country’s murder rate has been declining for 25 years, but plenty of cities are seeing rise in violent crime and homicide the last few years even with increased police numbers.
The actual most accurate correlation over time and by location/justification is incarceration rates — showing incarceration/sentencing policy and prosecution policy is what is driving trends in crime — not police on the street.
In my city, in 1992, near the peak of our homicide rate we had 1,100 persons incarcerated. By 2013 we had over 2,500 person incarcerated and our murder and shootings rate had declined by 63% and 60%. Gun murder crashed by almost 2/3 in just 20 years.
After 2014 our incarceration rate has now dropped from over 2,500 to 1,452 — and our local murder rate is up 41% since 2014.
In 1998 over 70% of our firing of a gun in public was prosecuted as felony (mostly ADW). Today more than 70% is charged as unlawful discharge, a minor misdemeanor. Most illegal carry was fully charged with first offense resulting in prison sentences ten years ago, now most is papered (plea, no jail, and expunged after one year) on first offense.
“What about the fact that nearly 40% of cops are domestic abusers?”
Where’d you get that “fact”? CNN?
You’re FAKE news!
Fake website with fake news. Who’s surprised? Post a real source you liberal retard. That’s such blatant Shit, the national rate isn’t even 20%, unless you believe CNN and are a meetoo worshipper.
What passes for a “Real Source” nowadays…
That opinion article (it is not a study) does NOT actually show police have ANY elevation of domestic abuse.
What they are doing is counting both men and women, adults and children and then not controlling for the fact that most police are males. In fact a 30 year old male police officer has no higher abuse perpetration rate than a 30 year old non-LEO male.
by the referenced site has posts supporting drug decriminalization. Drug users commit domestic violence at three times the rate of the general public. Recreational marijuana users are more than twice as likely to be child support scofflaws.
Isn’t FOX now owned by leftists? Aren’t they trying to hire CNN people? Didn’t they punish Jeanine Pirro for talking about that Muslim congress woman and threatened to fire her if she doesn’t shape up?
You’re probably right. There’s that, and a noticeably slow, leftward shift going on there.
Hell you can’t go to town without bumping into more cops than existed in this county 20 years ago and that’s even before you get to town. If the trend continues, there will be nobody left to do other jobs.
That’s the problem: you only see them on your way INTO town, not while you’re IN town. Just like the Parkland “Security Resource” who was busily securing the campus’s empty football field rather than patrolling the occupied school buildings, many police (like most folk) if left to their own devices will select a patrol area based on how uneventful it will make their shift. The question they ask themselves is, “Should I hand out speeding tickets at the edge of town or patrol around in the center of town where I might get shot in gang violence crossfire?”
My apologies to the majority of police who take their duties and training seriously, the ones who are trying to stop real crime rather than justify their existence by persisting in acting like arrogant jerks.
Or just a matter of Perception! Police Officers per Capita of 100,000 Civilians. A the Population Increases so does the Police Force…
So a bigger police state is better? Doesn’t sound like it because the presence of a man with a gun is what appears to stop people from doing crime seeing the arrest and conviction rates reflect this. In other words, more cops is bad, more people with guns is good.
Don’t forget that police become corrupt along with the rest of the government and they will enforce the “law” because that is now their mission statement and identity.
This is why I support the right to keep and bear arms without licensing and the law to not encumber people from using their weapons to protect life, liberty and property. I don’t want a police state where cops are training as snipers and machine guns to be used on Americans like it’s the Vietnam war.
Training as snipers and machine gunners to be used on Americans like it’s the Vietnam war.
Does sound very much like what happens in any Socialist/Communist/Tyrannical country doesn’t it. I can see this being used by politicians to implement even more draconian laws (and adding even more LEO) in the name of “public safety”. Give me liberty and I’ll take care of my own safety.
While the conclusion makes logical sense to some degree I still question the findings.
There are simply too many unknowns that are not possible to correct for. Unknowns which alternate theories can be posited and said theories probably cannot be shown to be incorrect. If they can be shown to be incorrect haters will simply modify them a bit.
For example: More cops don’t suppress crime but rather suppress the reporting of crime because cops are so racist that more of them means more fear of the police in “communities of color” which are the most at risk. No justice, no peace blah blah blah.
Well, here is an alternative theory:
Cops commit crimes at a higher rate than CCW permit holders,
therefore more cops equals more crime, more CCW holders equals less crime.
And how many of those Police Officers are also CCW holders…
The more the data overlaps, the closer the crime per capita rate would be, as you would be describing the same group of people, nevertheless:
‘The rate of forcible rape and sodomy for officers is 10.33 per 100,000 per year. By contrast, the forcible rape rate for the general population was 30.9 in 2006.’
It would appear, that for this crime if not crime generally, approximately a third of it is committed by police officers, and that is just a comparison versus the general population. If the data overlaps than the crime rate for officers is actually much higher.
Your making the exact opposite of the point that you think you are making. My point stands : more cops equals more crime, more CCW permit holders equals less crime.
Even the Old West had Law Enforcement (Sheriff’s and Marshal’s)! Not having either invites Anarchy, or worse Lynchings. Keep in mind the Salem Witch Hunt, was about seven girls just having fun calling 29 people witches, of which 19 were Burned Alive. Because there was No Law…
And on Mars there are polar ice caps, possibly aliens. This however is no more relevant to the discussion than your straw-man argument.
However, interestingly enough, it was the law enforcement of the time that excuted those “WITCHES“
Once again, you are making precisely the opposite argument that you think you are. The Salem witches were arrested, indicted, tortured and executed by the authorities, law enforcement.
Still, and always, my point stands: more cops, more crime. More CCW holders, less crime.
Don’t you already know this intuitively anyway? Give one example, anywhere on earth, at any time in history, where a centralized powerful government, created a better situation for the populace at large by increasing its power, (ie. more cops), just one…
You must be bored to be answering the same comment twice in less than an hour…
No, I found a credible source, something that you might find to be useful in the future.
“It would appear, that for this crime if not crime generally, approximately a third of it is committed by police officers, and that is just a comparison versus the general population. If the data overlaps than the crime rate for officers is actually much higher. ”
That’s not how statistics works, unless the number of cops = the general population. Please just try understanding numbers before you try to come up with wacky conclusions.
“Keep in mind the Salem Witch Hunt, was about seven girls just having fun calling 29 people witches, of which 19 were Burned Alive. Because there was No Law…”
“Twenty people were eventually executed as witches, but contrary to popular belief, none of the condemned was burned at the stake. In accordance with English law, 19 of the victims of the Salem Witch Trials were instead taken to the infamous Gallows Hill to die by hanging.”
But STILL Killed for something they Never Did, at the Word of some Bored Children
You seem to have missed the point, that being that as the total number of police approaches the total number of CCW holders, or as you pointed out the total population, the per capita rate would converge since you would be describing the same group of people. The fact the CCW holders commit crimes at a far lesser rate than police officers, and given that police officers are no doubt included in the population of CCW holders, and that their crime rate is underreported, then the rate at which cops commit crimes is even larger that the ten fold number that was reported in the article (did you even read the link?)
So although cops are not committing a third of the rapes in gross numbers, their rate of crime is ten times that of CCW holders, therefore if you are going to artificially alter the general population by adding a specific class of people to it , what you want add are CCW holders, not cops, because comparatively speaking (i.e. adding cops vs. adding CCW holders), more cops would equal more crime.
There, is that explanation enough to make my point clear?
Or perhaps another way to look at it is that if you took 1000 random people and 1000 random cops, the cops would be responsible for 1/3 of the forcible rape and sodomy. Not wonderful in my opinion. So, if you are going to spend taxpayer money in an effort to improve society, what should you focus on? – Cops or CCW holders?
“Humm” you have some of the most fact challenged posts. You clearly do not know firearms or firearms law.
“And how many of those Police Officers are also CCW holders”
do you even know what LEOSA is? NO data from CCW in that study are “police who are also “CCW holders.”
Imagine how much crime could be stopped if cops stopped running speed traps or citing people for parking on the wrong side of the street on Mondays, Wednesdays, Fridays and Sundays after 9:00am and spent more time patrolling high crime areas or investigating crimes.
Unfortunately many municipalities/cities. See low level ticketed violations as a necessary money stream and yes they are a violation of the law. Many rural areas and small towns have low enough crime rates that spending time on traffic violations makes monetary sense for them. I don’t believe even for one second that more police correlates to less crime or even more arrests. Especially with the revolving door policies of prosecutors making deals and judges slapping thugs on the wrist. In many cases the police have their hands tied by these practices. As well as people refusing to cooperate/testify when witnessing crime. Many areas of this country get exactly what they deserve by turning a blind eye and hoping it doesn’t happen to them. When something horrible does happen to them or their loved ones. Then they scream bloody murder and blame everyone under the sun. Quoting statistics makes no difference and are to easily misrepresented. Numbers mean nothing when you are the victim. Keep Your Powder Dry.
Yes they are violations of laws. Really, really stupid laws, but yes it’s important that even really stupid laws are enforced to maintain the revenue stream of the local bureaucracy. Just one man’s opinion, but if your department has nothing better to do than send officers patrolling residential side streets on Sunday morning looking for cars that haven’t been moved to the other side of the street by 9:15am you’ve got too many officers in your department. Fortunately though, I have off street parking.
Ferguson, Missouri is a prime example and it wasn’t even the worst offender in Saint Louis County.
Speed traps, cameras at intersections, annual fuckin car registration fees, taxes, or whatever the name of the extortion is, just get rid of all these “laws” that are all about generating income for the cities and the state to pay their over abundance of employees. I had a loving mother. I dont expect government to be my new one then charge me for the blessing.
Herein lies the problem with government, there’s no profit motive and no accountability for spending. In a lot of places it costs $25k+ to put one single child through just one year of public school, which would pay for one hell of a private school. But as long as they have compulsory patronage that will never change.
But how many people are paying for the “Collective Taxes” of that $25-K! I suspect it isn’t just one person or one family…
Just because I have to pay for other people’s children doesn’t make it any less wrong.
Well, I know I never wrote a parking ticket. Ever. Most agencies that are even worried about it have non-sworn parking enforcement. Even so. Don’t want a parking ticket? Park where you’re supposed to. Don’t want a speeding ticket? Don’t speed. Don’t want to be arrested for bank robbery? Don’t rob a bank. Think the others are harmless? I was on the road today doing five under. An idiot passed on a double yellow line. Every head on I ever went to had a fatality. The worst three. Two of them children. Tell me how L.E. has better things to do when they show up on your doorstep with the worst news.
As someone who has actually survived a head on collision on a motorcycle with a car at a combined closing speed of 85mph, fuck you. Having to move your car to the other side of the street every day is fucked. And all but the most egregious speeding offenses are far more benign than a dozen other driving sins like texting, driving while intoxicated, driving while drowsy, driving while distracted, etc, etc… Cities set speed limits 15mph lower than what most people want to drive just so they can write tickets. They set up red light cameras then take a second off the yellow so accidents increase but revenues also increase. These fucking local bureaucrats are NOT our friends.
Times change,Now we got this;^. In my bike riding DayZ you was getting passed centerline, double yellow,right side, red light, with friends.1/2 Concealed Carry, And nobody got hurt. Times change….. the Buffalo are gone.
But, Gov, bust those insidious speeders and wrongful parkers now and they might not progress to more serious crimes later.
I doubt the findings, but don’t have the time or inclination to persue destroying their study. Crime and crime statistics, and the required analysis are difficult and complex subjects. Cops are only one variable, there are many others the local DA office and local judges, how many bad guys can the local jail or prisons hold? How much corruption is there in the police force and or the district attorneys office? Are citizens allowed to carry firearms for their own protection (sucks to live in NJ, etc.)
Did the authors try to control for all these variables? Doubt it!
Interesting. Who could have predicted a connection between the number of people enforcing laws and the amount of crime. Next they’ll be claiming the earth isn’t flat!
If I could steal screen names imayeti would be it. Oh by the way”iron cat beast” ;>} Me and the cat had play time, damned little bitch and razor claws, alcohol burns
Oh yeah, it’s been recommended that de clawing the cat would be in my best interest. I disagree, I will gladly replace a $300 couch) recliner or curtains whatever over disarming a creature that needs its defenses more than most humans. You do you, but when your Tommy cat or Missy Prissey runs out that door, well three days gone in the jungle. Without your sht kinda sux
Ever read 3 FELONIES A DAY? More cops as revenue generators is more like it…
This shouldn’t be news.
Back before 9/11, North Philadelphia was one of the most dangerous places in the nation. Philadelphia spent $5 million to saturate the area with cops and violent and other crimes were reduced dramatically.
Of course, the prosecutors and judges have to do their part also. Just look at Chicago.
That’s what I was going to comment on. If you had 2 cops per citizen , it really wouldn’t have the maximum effect of good judges and tough sentencing, the kind they want to repeal now. It’s a package deal.
Let the cop haters vitriol begin!
It isn’t the police we have to worry about. It’s the politicians who will use this to strip even more liberty from us that we need to worry about.
We should find it curious that as 2A supporters, we herald the effect of a rising number of gun owners/carriers helps reduce the overall crime rate. We are proud to point out that as the number of guns in society increases, there is a notable decrease in crime overall. Some people cry out “correlation does not equal causation”, some people say there is a direct connection.
If increasing the number of guns actually does reduce crime, there will come a day when we can no longer justify carrying because the threat is reduced to a manageable minimum (gun-grabbers will decide when that level is reached). At that point, there will be a public demand that we not add to the gun population because we have enough to keep crime low.
If we POTG can claim the presence of more guns equals less crime, how can we legitimately refuse the same argument regarding more police equals less crime?
Pro-gun enthusiasts have anchored “gun rights” on the NEED for self-defense against street crime, de-emphasizing the defense against the state principle for which the 2A was written. We may be facing the consequences of our claim to self-defense.
I already posted a comment addressing that and gave an example of the militarized police state being used in America against both Mexican and U.S. nationals.
In the state of Texas they put foreigners in a private prison that is next to rail road tracks. These people/families are in these detention centers (AKA concentration camps) because of their residency status. This allows the state of Texas and DHS to practice rounding up people and sending them to “detention” centers with the support of the American people because the American people really don’t like illegal immigrants/residents. The type of people in these facilities can easily switch to whomever they want to send there.
The U.S. builds “off-site” detainment facilities to house “enemy combatants” so they can pretend these people do not have human or civil rights and don’t get due process because they are militants. People could be tortured and indefinitely held without due process or acknowledgement of their imprisonment. This is considered a fantastic idea by the American people and was still supported under Obama.
States like Texas also want a “real ID” program implemented to monitor, record the travels and status of people within the U.S. Trump also wants this human tracking system to be implemented in America so the government can track all citizens/residents. The excuse for this system is illegal immigration. The government and Trump would like to build the wall if the wall will keep Americans in, but first they need their advance technology of tracking humans with real IDs, drones and NSA surveillance. This is a bipartisan goal and supported by corporations (including the tech industry). There is an alliance of countries and corporations that work together to spy on everyone and they have created a system for the world. They also created a strategy to move the world away from a somewhat untraceable cash system to a completely traceable crypto currency system [Bitcoin].
The U.S. Special Operations and militarized police have been training to “engage” Americans who attempt an insurrection. There has been a program to equip and train police departments with surplus military gear. The corporate media has also been told to dehumanize and demonize any militia group or people of like mind. General law enforcement was taught that these types of radical people are future terrorists, that they claim to be sovereigns, thus they are crazy and extremely dangerous.
The establishment wants “universal background checks” and “extreme risk protection orders” to make sure they can go after individuals that they deem a danger before they can group together or act on their own… Everyone is automatically spied on electronically, each person has a dossier, people are given “priority” ratings and put on lists.
Trump’s controllers want their plan finished by 2024, but they will settle for 2032. They figure “patriot” Americans will reelect Trump and will support everything he does, thus fulfilling the plan sooner than expected. It was hard to get it done under Obama. It’s much easier to get it done with a white man that lies about his father being a German.
By the way, I don’t understand why Americans don’t know the plan when it’s openly talked about outside of America.
Perhaps better argued that the 2A principle and self defense (among other uses) are not mutually exclusive. We have been taught to accept they are mutually exclusive uses – or we’ve come to believe they are. Firearms are even marketed as such. Hence the left’s – and the law’s – discrimination between the various types. Ban those, but not those others, etc., etc.
User1 – Your village misses you please go home.
(Noncitizens do NOT have Constitutional right no matter what some idiot prog says about it.)
You must not be an American because the Constitution of The U.S. recognizes human rights and codifies them as civil rights so the federal government can protect some of them. This way leftists politicians can’t deny someone’s human rights by pretending rights are privileges given to people by government instead of being natural or God given. It was assumed majority of people would think human rights don’t exist unless the government said they did. This is literally written in the writings of the founders, the declaration and the constitution.
European nations are the white people that still consider rights government given privileges that can be granted or taken away by decree like done in New Zealand. Licensing is a major controller of the people. European Americans rejected this old world idea in the new world and created a new form of government different than Europe’s socialist or communist systems.
Maybe you are one of those Christians who is anti semitic. Maybe you are one of those white people who is a supremacist/racist. These are weaknesses that smart people will use to get you to argue against human rights and implement a system that will be used against the white Christian heterosexual male. Don’t fall for the leftist’s manipulation. They will get you to destroy your country’s culture and implement their system like they did to China.
Never learned about Irony did you? Using Gadsden Flag as your handle while worshiping the very standing army that will be treading on you. If you are not a cop hater, you are not paying attention.
The Gadsden flag is about limited government. Not “no government”. Like you Liberal, anarchyst, sovereign citizen fucktards believe in. Sovereign Citizens are the ultimate liberals plain as day.
The term “sovereign citizen” is an oxymoron. It’s demonzing propaganda to manipulate law enforcement into disliking everyone outside of their group.
In the current era of American society the people do not have supreme power over their government like intended. They can’t even keep and bear arms without permission from their government. They can’t use their land freely, they must get permits and pay fees. They must register themselves with the government to receive an identifying/tracking number to function in society… They are permitted to keep a certain percentage of their property/money. If they are ever convicted of a felony they lose their ability/power to change their government and laws.
The U.S. was designed for the people to have all the power, thus they are ultimately to be the sovereigns that grant the government certain powers and reserve the rest. This has been flipped around where the government now decides what powers they have and what they allow the people to do. The so called representatives of the people have usurped the government with the help of the military and police.
There is always some form of governance in a civilized environment. Fascism, Communism, and whatever other form of socialism, wants/needs a centralized government power structure. Limited governance types do not want a central authority with a monopoly. Even anarchists want government, they just want it at the most local of levels where they can control it better and they want to be able to detach themselves from it if they so choose.
The founders of the U.S. didn’t want a standing army because they knew once a government gets such power they will use it against its own people and eventually the government would become an empire. Their life experiences shown them there mustn’t be a militarized police state if they want to remain free. Rather they need: the people to keep and bear arms, militias, posse comitatus, habeas corpus and due process. After the government created a standing army and used it against American citizens and Indians, they passed a Posse Comitatus Act to reduce the easy of use of the military by the president within the U.S.
Depends on the crime… cops aren’t the nicest people.
More cops less crime is assuming that they actually stop the criminal before committing the crime i.e. Stoneman Douglas school shooting. Many more examples I am sure.
How many times did law enforcement (Sheriff and FBI) know this guys was a problem and still did not stop him! In fact he walked out of the school right past the cops.
This also assumes that cops are perfect. They are just people that make human errors like everyone else.
Victims are the First Responders, law enforcement very rarely stops the crime before it happens.
Disappointed in NRAILA for supporting this research.
“Victims are the First Responders, law enforcement very rarely stops the crime before it happens.”
The research did not conclude that a specific crime was known to have been prevented by “more cops”. The conclusion was that “more cops” seemed to provide a measurable deterrence due to the parallel phenomena of increasing number of officers, and declining crime in selected locations. It is difficult to measure the effectiveness of specific deterrent features against specific responses. This is largely because people would be required to self-identify that they intended to commit a specific crime, but knowing more police were on the streets prevented a specific person from committing a specific crime…marking themselves as general suspects from that day, forward.
In the strategic deterrence business, we really could not state that this weapon, or that counter-measure resulted in the Soviets not making a hostile move that absent the weapon/counter-measure the Sovs would have made. Overall, “deterrence” worked because neither the US, nor the Sovs took actions that would irrevocably result in a nuclear exchange. Ultimately, it was the general knowledge on both sides that certain national power was constrained by the capabilities of the other side.
As noted elsewhere, we are disingenuous if we claim that there is correlation between crime rates falling overall and the rapid increase of the number of guns in the hands of citizens, but fail to grant that same conclusion to those who point to a similar conclusion by those who seek to demonstrate that “more cops equals less crime”.
You can’t have both. And I’m not talking about crime or safety, I am talking about freedom and police states. As I grow older I start to realize they are more imposing on public safety than we actually need. I get it, police presence is both a positive and negative thing, and I don’t believe all the hype from groups like BLM about their racial profiling and such, but sadly, their existence alone is exactly what hitler used to take control. Don’t act like it can’t happen. Don’t act like once they enforce seizures of assets the police force would not be used next, because it would. I, like you, hope it never does, and we probably all know police who would not comply with such tyranny, but the fact is that most would, to maintain a job and “protect their family”. So plain and simple, I chose freedom. I am not relying on the average response time and when they do arrive, chances are my only statement will be: “Lawyer”.
Take a look at how Venezuela has handled the masses “for their own safety”. Hitler had nothing on Chavez and Maduro.
They are just making a case for a police state……comply….obey.
Study paid for by Dunkin Donuts
To quote a certain animated T.V. character, “DUH”.
So, this professor is in favor of a police state. Isn’t that exactly what gun grabbers want? Hmmmm . . . .
Somehow, I can’t get on board with that idea.
I’d rather see a comparison of the various countries, highlighting the ratio of cops to citizens, crime rates, and gun laws. Of all the studies I’ve read on crime rates, the most honest ones say that no one knows why crime rates go up, or go down. What we do know about crime rates is, every politician and cop wants to take credit when they go down, and they want to blame the opposite party when crime rates go up.
More cops = less crime. Well yeh, I guess. But ( no buts Nita said),,, However , how much is more, tell that to them hoodlem meth heads eyeballin my bicycle. It would take a platoon of cops doing their cop things to put a dent in this epidemic. If there is a War On Drugs the objective should be the crystal meth. How do we stop it? Shaken bake coming out of every low rent apartment nation wide.America has a problem. Them damned Beatles from the UK, Dad was right, “Banana smoking long hairs are going to ruin this country.” However, after eyeballin some of them females I was dating back then he proclaimed ” I’d like to be King beatnik” …….. Fxk Meth
An easy fix. Start selling safe, pharmaceutical grade meth over the counter at the liquor store. The country used to run on meth in the late 40’s, 50’s, and 60’s.
The War on (some) Drugs is really a war against the American people.
Go back another 20 years…
Less police , less BIG Brother….Constitutional Carry for states as it should be…
I suspect if it were that easy, we’d already be doing it! And not just talking about it…
16 States already are, and more are trying to be.
Hmmm, crime I can defend myself against or a growing police state. I will take the crime every day of the week. At least most criminals are honest about what they really do. Can’t say the same for the thugs with badges.
Gentrification of sh!tty neighborhoods reduces crime, probably to a greater extent than merely expanding the size of the police force.
I think gentrification shifts a population to another area and whatever positives or negatives go with them. After all, it’s mainly the people that’s the problem, not where they live or what items they own.
When a communist leaves LA for Austin they don’t usually switch their ideology now that they are around Christian whites. They feel entitled…
This site’s gone to the dogs since Obama left office. Apparently people need a democrat in office to remember to have a healthy fear of the police state.
Even Ralph?! Damn, either you are a different person than you were 8 years ago, or this party line nonsense really does turn people into zombies.
With zero cops there would also be less crime, except for hanging of innocent people!
“With zero cops there would also be less crime”
My stance has always been that with zero laws there would be zero crime. Struggles? Yes. Crime? No.
Only when a “Struggle” actually becomes a “Crime”…
“Only when a “Struggle” actually becomes a “Crime”…”
“Crime” is the violation of what is a perceived “law”. In our context, that would mean a codified “law” based on human values of one time, or another. Without such “laws”, there can be no violation, thus no “crime”. Metaphysics is a whole ‘nuther country.
So what’s your Perception of Common Law! What the Majority of Americans Believes! Or what YOU yourself Believe (i.e. “Aloof”) from the rest of Society. In which case there will most likely be a Crime…
“So what’s your Perception of Common Law! ”
Common law is what the strongest in a group determine it to be. Are you thinking “natural law”, rather than “common law”? That edges into the metaphysical. If “natural law”, that once included the “Divine Right of Kings” to rule absolutely and arbitrarily, is at issue then we must look at what different societies through history considered to be “natural law”, such as the law of conquest and subjugation. Benjamin Franklin’s son was the last Colonial Governor of New Jersey. He and his father were diametrically opposed regarding independence. The son is reported to have responded to Franklin’s criticisms of the repression of the rights of Englishmen by saying, “He is the King, and he can do with us as he pleases.”
My original comment was to extend the idea of reducing some element of criminal activity as reducing crime overall (reducing the number of police will reduce crime) to its logical and extreme manifestation….eliminating law eliminates crime.
That’s true with any Society, including the one we live in. If a Sheriff deputizes you, he/she volunteering your services, to perform a task that you might not want to do. So what’s the difference…
“That’s true with any Society, including the one we live in. If a Sheriff deputizes you, he/she volunteering your services, to perform a task that you might not want to do. So what’s the difference…”
Sorry, only on my third martini so my thinking is slow still. Not following the thread of the comment above.
I suspect your Fourth and Fifth won’t clarify it any either, always assuming that your Martini actually has Alcohol in it…
“…always assuming that your Martini actually has Alcohol in it…”
You know, I thought they were tasting funny. You may be onto something. Beer, on the other hand, never lets you down.
This is interesting.
In his book MORE GUNS, LESS CRIME, Professor John Lott revealed that increasing the number of police officers is actually associated with MORE CRIME!
Lott’s conclusion was a consequence of his often ignored statistical analysis of crime rates verses arrest rates and crime clearance rates in various jurisdictions. People are so obsessed with the debate over guns that they ignore the reality that the police in America’s most murder ravaged cities allow the vast majority of homicides to remain unsolved. This is why over a third of homicides nationally remain unsolved. It should have surprised no one that a systematic failure of police fail to solve crimes and arrrest the perpetrators undermines deterence and encourages criminality. However; everyone seems to ignore this issue and the FBI refuses to release comparative data on arrest rates for various jurisdictions except through its volumous Supplementary Homicide Reports.
If you will not do the time, why not do the crime?
I am one of the few people who actually looks at the FBI data on clearance and arrest rates. The historic decline in crime rates that occurred during the late 1990s and 2000s was NOT associated with increased clearance and arrest rates. Only after crime rates decreased did clearance rates in some American cities increase. However; clearance rates and arrest rates in smaller cities and suburban counties decreased so the nati9nal average remained unchanged. Criminals became less violent even though they were still likely to literally get away with murder. I give the credit to Newt Gingrich who compelled President Clinton to pass wellfare reform.
Lott theorized that increasing the number of police officers in a jurisdiction can encourage bureaucratization that actually reduces the number of detectives and resources available to actually solve crimes.
I recall a phone conversation that I was priveledged to have with Proffessor Lott many years ago in which we discussed my own research that compared Crime and arrest rates in the US to other countries that typically allow almost no homicides to remain unsolved. High murder rates are closely correlated with low clearance and arrest rates internationally as well as nationally. Even more interesting was my analysis of historical data on murder verses crime clearance rates for the US. My research remains locked up on the hard drive of an Apple Macintosh Classic that is deceased. However; the easily confirmed reality is that the historic surge in homicide rates that began in the early 1960s was predeeded by a sudden and precipitous decrease in homicide clearance and arrrest rates.
If an analysis of more recent data confirms that hiring more cops can increase crime clearance rates and arrest rates, and thus reduce crime rates, I am all for it. However; it is more likely that the onlyutility of these extra cops will be gun confiscation.
Liked your review of the crime landscape.
Lott, and others, misfire on three significant elements of “gun rights”:
1. Use of data is futile for converting voters
2. Logic is a failure with gun-grabbers
3. “It’ is not about crime, at all
You can have your more cops. Just remember that every cop has a quota and since we pass more and more laws each and every year, there’s always something they can arrest us for, one way or the other. That also means more SWAT teams to crash down your door in the middle of the night. No thanks.
“More Cops Mean Less Crime”
Clearly, you’ve never lived in Chicago, where more cops means more COP crime.
Cops are the biggest thieves out there. Through Civil Asset Forfeiture alone, they stole more property last year than “real” thieves. Not only that, the entire existence of cops (and all other government programs for that matter) are funded through violent wealth redistribution. The cops are a purely socialist agency. Cops are not our friends, they’re violent government enforcers. They only protect us insofar as it keeps the tax machine running. Cops are the enemy. Anyone who supports the cops are brainwashed bootlickers.