NationStates Jolt Archive

Crime Drops, Despite Expiration of Gun Ban
By Susan Jones
CNSNews.com Senior Editor
June 08, 2005

(CNSNews.com) - So much for "anti-gun hysterics" and predictions of "blood running in the streets," a Second Amendment group says.

Nine months after the Clinton-era "assault weapons ban" expired, the FBI has released crime statistics showing a drop in homicides in 2004 -- the first such drop since 1999. The FBI report said all types of violent crime declined last year, and cities with more than a million people showed the largest drops in violent crime.

When the Clinton ban on certain semiautomatic weapons expired last September, gun control groups warned that violent crime would escalate, including violence against children.

But those "doom and gloom" forecasts have been exposed as "pure clap-trap," said SAF President Joe Tartaro.

"Where is the news media on this?" Tartaro wondered. He said if the number of homicides had gone up, reporters would be writing front-page stories linking the rise to the end of the semi-auto ban.

"But that's not the case, and the mainstream press, with the exception of an April 28 New York Times article, has been pretty quiet about it," Tartaro said.

The FBI crime report is more proof that the rhetoric from anti-gunners is bogus, Tartaro added. "The press should now question all the other outrageous claims and predictions from the gun control crowd.".

I don't think the two have anything to do with each other. The AWB never really banned anything, only a few random models. I keep guns, myself, and am glad the crime rate dropped, but the AWB was totally useless from Day 1 anyway.

Edit: It is funny that anyone would predict increased violence after the AWB expired though.. that's one point the author has.

They left out the exact percentage drops in crime. How come?

Actually I think the ban on magazines of over 10 rounds of ammo influenced stuff, since most defensive hanguns like Glocks use e'm.

From a different article:

The FBI reported that for the first time since 1999, homicides declined last year 5.4 percent in cities with more than 1 million people, and overall, murders fell 3.6 percent nationwide.

Correlation != Causation.

That said, I supported the ban's expiration, simply because it didn't make much sense logically.
Ban guns, and by definition only those who break the law will have them.

Yes because there are only 2 factors in this argument :rolleyes: .
Nothing else should be taken into consideration

They left out the exact percentage drops in crime. How come?
Because it is irrelevant. The presence or absence of firearms has almost nothing to do with crime rates. It is not a causal relationship by any stretch of the imagination.

Crime rates have been declining because there are fewer low SES males of prime criminal age in urban areas than there has been in the past.

Firearms do not reduce crime rates, they only reduce crime success rates.

Crime rates have been declining because there are fewer low SES males of prime criminal age in urban areas than there has been in the past.

SES?

Firearms do not reduce crime rates, they only reduce crime success rates.

That's what the FBI statistics measure.

Besides, if the Department of Justice and the University of Florida to be believed, firearms presense does reduce certain kinds of crime, burglary and rape for example.

SES?
SocioEconomic Status. Poor Yobs.

The ASW was bullshit anyway. How many criminals actually use AR15s and AK47s? Almost none. They're too hard to conceal and too expensive for your average robber or street drug dealer.

Yes because there are only 2 factors in this argument :rolleyes: .
Nothing else should be taken into consideration

Yes, it's true that we've increased the number of gun owners from 60 to 80 million people over the last ten years.

Yes, it's true that we've increased the number of guns owned from 200 million to 300 million over the last ten years.

And it's true that firearms murders have dropped from a high of nearly 20,000 per year down to the current level of less than 11,000 per year nationwide.

And it's true that firearms related violent crime has dropped from a high of 1.3 million events per year down to around 400,000.

And it's true that 35 states have changed their laws during that time, to allow law abiding citizens to carry pistols concealed.

So there are more guns, more gun owners, more guns on the street in the hands of legal, law abiding citizens, and the murders have dropped, the firearm deaths have dropped, and the firearm related violent crime has dropped.

Still want to say there's no correlation? I'm sure that if the murder and crime had increased, you would be quick to point out the connection, because you probably believe that more guns = more crime.

Maybe it works that way elsewhere.

Here in the US, as a nation, more guns = less crime.

That's what the FBI statistics measure.

Besides, if the Department of Justice and the University of Florida to be believed, firearms presense does reduce certain kinds of crime, burglary and rape for example.
Certain types, yes, but not over-all rates. Criminals tend to shift their focus to less hazardous crimes, but they still commit crimes.

Yes, it's true that we've increased the number of gun owners from 60 to 80 million people over the last ten years.

Yes, it's true that we've increased the number of guns owned from 200 million to 300 million over the last ten years.

And it's true that firearms murders have dropped from a high of nearly 20,000 per year down to the current level of less than 11,000 per year nationwide.

And it's true that firearms related violent crime has dropped from a high of 1.3 million events per year down to around 400,000.

And it's true that 35 states have changed their laws during that time, to allow law abiding citizens to carry pistols concealed.

So there are more guns, more gun owners, more guns on the street in the hands of legal, law abiding citizens, and the murders have dropped, the firearm deaths have dropped, and the firearm related violent crime has dropped.

Still want to say there's no correlation? I'm sure that if the murder and crime had increased, you would be quick to point out the connection, because you probably believe that more guns = more crime.

Maybe it works that way elsewhere.

Here in the US, as a nation, more guns = less crime.

I'm not saying there is NO correlation, that would be plain stupid. What I'm saying is that we are just talking about two factors, guns and level of crime.
There are so many other factors to this than just saying theres a direct correlation between guns and levels of crime.

Some professor said potential killers duplicate what they see: two kids shoot some poeple in a school ==> a couple other kids decide to do the same. The more the media jumps on these things the more they will repeat themselves.
I dont know whether its true, i do know that it sounds believeble

SocioEconomic Status. Poor Yobs.

thanks

I'm not saying there is NO correlation, that would be plain stupid. What I'm saying is that we are just talking about two factors, guns and level of crime.
There are so many other factors to this than just saying theres a direct correlation between guns and levels of crime.

The other thing to consider is that in the US, 76 percent of violent crime involves no firearm.

And no knife, bat, chain, whip, saw, or any other implement.

Plenty of murder, rape, aggravated assault, and robbery using bare hands.

You could eliminate all guns, and those crimes would still occur. Even ban those pointy kitchen knives - and it wouldn't have that much of an effect.

And the fact that ALL rifles and shotguns in America kill less people then knives.

:)

The other thing to consider is that in the US, 76 percent of violent crime involves no firearm.

And no knife, bat, chain, whip, saw, or any other implement.

Plenty of murder, rape, aggravated assault, and robbery using bare hands.

You could eliminate all guns, and those crimes would still occur. Even ban those pointy kitchen knives - and it wouldn't have that much of an effect.

We must begin cutting off hands immediately!! :D

We must begin cutting off hands immediately!! :D

With what? We don't have any knives!

The other thing to consider is that in the US, 76 percent of violent crime involves no firearm.

And no knife, bat, chain, whip, saw, or any other implement.

Plenty of murder, rape, aggravated assault, and robbery using bare hands.

You could eliminate all guns, and those crimes would still occur. Even ban those pointy kitchen knives - and it wouldn't have that much of an effect.
I agree that if guns were owned by the victims these sort of crimes could possibly not occur

And the fact that ALL rifles and shotguns in America kill less people then knives.

:)

Markreich's Remington: 1 deer and 1 very ornery IBM laptop.
Mom's Buick: 4 deer, 1 possum and a multitude of grey squirrels, chipmunks, and field mice.

Cars kill more than guns. :eek:

Crime Drops, Despite Expiration of Gun Ban
By Susan Jones
CNSNews.com Senior Editor
June 08, 2005

(CNSNews.com) - So much for "anti-gun hysterics" and predictions of "blood running in the streets," a Second Amendment group says.

Nine months after the Clinton-era "assault weapons ban" expired, the FBI has released crime statistics showing a drop in homicides in 2004 -- the first such drop since 1999. The FBI report said all types of violent crime declined last year, and cities with more than a million people showed the largest drops in violent crime.

When the Clinton ban on certain semiautomatic weapons expired last September, gun control groups warned that violent crime would escalate, including violence against children.

But those "doom and gloom" forecasts have been exposed as "pure clap-trap," said SAF President Joe Tartaro.

"Where is the news media on this?" Tartaro wondered. He said if the number of homicides had gone up, reporters would be writing front-page stories linking the rise to the end of the semi-auto ban.

"But that's not the case, and the mainstream press, with the exception of an April 28 New York Times article, has been pretty quiet about it," Tartaro said.

The FBI crime report is more proof that the rhetoric from anti-gunners is bogus, Tartaro added. "The press should now question all the other outrageous claims and predictions from the gun control crowd.".


So, the ban was dropped for the last three months of the year, but the crime stats for the WHOLE year as compared to the previous years are somehow are to be taken as indicitive as to the impact of this legislative change? Especially given that statistically the crime patterns peak in summer as the highest activity months which would not have been at all affected by the change in status of this statute?



Any sort of validation one way or another as to the effect of the dropping of the ban is clearly not to be found in the 2004 report, and anyone writing news stories attempting to make that case in either direction at this point is frankly being an idiot.

With what? We don't have any knives!

Sticking a hand out for the train thats not going to stop?

With what? We don't have any knives!

Um... lawn mower?

Yes, it's true that we've increased the number of gun owners from 60 to 80 million people over the last ten years.
Yes, it's true that we've increased the number of guns owned from 200 million to 300 million over the last ten years.
And it's true that firearms murders have dropped from a high of nearly 20,000 per year down to the current level of less than 11,000 per year nationwide.
And it's true that firearms related violent crime has dropped from a high of 1.3 million events per year down to around 400,000.
And it's true that 35 states have changed their laws during that time, to allow law abiding citizens to carry pistols concealed.

So there are more guns, more gun owners, more guns on the street in the hands of legal, law abiding citizens, and the murders have dropped, the firearm deaths have dropped, and the firearm related violent crime has dropped.
Still want to say there's no correlation? I'm sure that if the murder and crime had increased, you would be quick to point out the connection, because you probably believe that more guns = more crime.

Maybe it works that way elsewhere.

Here in the US, as a nation, more guns = less crime.
Legs, while you know I fully support the premise, the statistics just don't back it up. While the over-all number of firearms owned has increased, the firearm-density has (IIRC) decreased due to population fluxes. There were fewer guns in the hands of more people prior to the Great America changes, but there was also a lower crime rate.

The principle driving force in statistically significant (on the national level) criminality is low SES population density. "Urban Renewal" created new ghettos that densified an increasing and increasingly criminal population. The implementation of Abortion on Demand had the statistical result of reversing that thrend. Welfare Reform is further affecting criminal densification. Over all crime rate reductions are the end result of a long series of sociological shifts - none of which have anything to do with guns.

There are fewer crimes because there are fewer criminals. The criminals we still have may very well (and do) avoid crimes that have the potential to get them shot, but they are still committing crimes. The decrease in personal/home assaults has more to do with the perception of possibe gun ownership than with the actual presence of a gun.

For the preceeding reason, all in all, it is most fair and stastically correct to say "Fewer Gun Laws = Less Crime".

Now, where's my AK... I've got some plinking to do. :D

With what? We don't have any knives!

blenders?

While the over-all number of firearms owned has increased, the firearm-density has (IIRC) decreased due to population fluxes

In actualy fact, what has INCREASED is the amount of guns people CARRY. Concealed carry legislation, especially in places where both concealed and open carry was illegal or de-facto illegal previously, leads to a higher per-capita amount of people carrying guns.

So, the ban was dropped for the last three months of the year, but the crime stats for the WHOLE year as compared to the previous years are somehow are to be taken as indicitive as to the impact of this legislative change? Especially given that statistically the crime patterns peak in summer as the highest activity months which would not have been at all affected by the change in status of this statute?

Any sort of validation one way or another as to the effect of the dropping of the ban is clearly not to be found in the 2004 report, and anyone writing news stories attempting to make that case in either direction at this point is frankly being an idiot.

Since the ban actually resulted in a huge increase in the sale of weapons that evaded the idiotic wording of the ban, and put far more guns out there, and since before and during the ban, so-called "assault weapons" accounted for an extremely small percentage of crimes, I would expect the expiration of the ban to have no effect - just as studies have already proven that the ban had no effect over its lifetime.

Statisticians explicitly hired by the Clinton administration during his second term could find no correlation between the assault weapons ban, the Brady restrictions, and any reduction in crime. They were dismayed, to say the least.

In actualy fact, what has INCREASED is the amount of guns people CARRY. Concealed carry legislation, especially in places where both concealed and open carry was illegal or de-facto illegal previously, leads to a higher per-capita amount of people carrying guns.
Which is a good thing. But the linguistic/semantic assertion of "More Guns = Less Crime" doesn't hold, whereas "Fewer Gun Laws = Less (specific types of) Crime" does. Unfortunately it's not as pithy.

One is inflamatory because it baits the opposition and has enough statistcal difficulties to cause problems for the pro-gun argument. The other more closely states the fact of the matter and is less assailable.

Interestingly, the Department of Justice says that the sharp peak of firearm violence from the mid-1980s to the mid-1990s is the result of youthful offenders choosing to use firearms.

Firearms that would be, and always have been, illegal for them to purchase.

That cohort of offenders has suffered the most deaths, the most imprisonment, and the rest have aged out.

Apparently, the DOJ doesn't believe that gun laws or gun ownership had any effect. They believe it was a cohort of stupid people doing activity that was already illegal.

Interestingly, the Department of Justice says that the sharp peak of firearm violence from the mid-1980s to the mid-1990s is the result of youthful offenders choosing to use firearms.

Firearms that would be, and always have been, illegal for them to purchase.

That cohort of offenders has suffered the most deaths, the most imprisonment, and the rest have aged out.

Apparently, the DOJ doesn't believe that gun laws or gun ownership had any effect. They believe it was a cohort of stupid people doing activity that was already illegal.
That cohort is also (effectively) the last before Roe v. Wade started thinning out the (as Margaret Sanger called them) "undesirables" from the inner city birthing rooms. (Intresting to note, that those States that implemented Abortion on Demand 3 years before Roe started seeing their crime rates start falling exactly 3 years earlier than the rest of the US....)

That cohort is also (effectively) the last before Roe v. Wade started thinning out the (as Margaret Sanger called them) "undesirables" from the inner city birthing rooms. (Intresting to note, that those States that implemented Abortion on Demand 3 years before Roe started seeing their crime rates start falling exactly 3 years earlier than the rest of the US....)
Probably, ironically, the same cohort that said that offering free Norplant to their women was a racist act.

Sheesh.

I guess the real question is wether or not fatalities in induvidual shootings dropped. For example; Colombine style mass-shootings would theoretically be aided by large capacity clips for guns. If we could find out how many EXTRA deaths were caused due to the presence of large capacity clips, there might be a potential argument for banning or restricting them.

But yes, the AWB was mostly a protest law. For example, some models of Uzi's were banned, yet by adding a shoulder strap to the gun, a new model was born, effectively side-stepping the ban. It was pointless as written.

Until a study or incident shows (like the Bank of America shooting rampage in california) that such guns and clips are of serious detriment to society, there is no real reason to ban them. Unfortunately that puts the government in the position of waiting for mass-murder to happen before they actually do anything. Thus things like the AWB, which indicate displeasure, but have no teeth.

In actualy fact, what has INCREASED is the amount of guns people CARRY. Concealed carry legislation, especially in places where both concealed and open carry was illegal or de-facto illegal previously, leads to a higher per-capita amount of people carrying guns.

True. Though one must also keep in mind that 9-11 prompted some people to buy guns/get licensed as well. I recall that Connecticut licenses were up something like 15-35% in the year after than from any year before.

Yes, it's true that we've increased the number of gun owners from 60 to 80 million people over the last ten years.

Yes, it's true that we've increased the number of guns owned from 200 million to 300 million over the last ten years.

And it's true that firearms murders have dropped from a high of nearly 20,000 per year down to the current level of less than 11,000 per year nationwide.

And it's true that firearms related violent crime has dropped from a high of 1.3 million events per year down to around 400,000.

And it's true that 35 states have changed their laws during that time, to allow law abiding citizens to carry pistols concealed.

So there are more guns, more gun owners, more guns on the street in the hands of legal, law abiding citizens, and the murders have dropped, the firearm deaths have dropped, and the firearm related violent crime has dropped.

Still want to say there's no correlation? I'm sure that if the murder and crime had increased, you would be quick to point out the connection, because you probably believe that more guns = more crime.

Maybe it works that way elsewhere.

Here in the US, as a nation, more guns = less crime.


Of course a vastly improved economy and more effective policing have nothing to do with it at all?

Let me see on minute guns have nothing to do with crime, it's the people, then the only way to reduce crime is to own more guns, it's got nothing to do with effective crime or people not turning to crime because of an improved economy...

Jeez I've seen so many of your posts in these threads and apart from a morbid love of guns you arguements chop and change to suit the sources given.

Of course a vastly improved economy and more effective policing have nothing to do with it at all?

I'd say that all of those things coming together made it happen. Kind of like how the more ingredients used, the better the burrito...

Of course a vastly improved economy and more effective policing have nothing to do with it at all?

So you're saying there was no Bush recession? No recession that set in just as Clinton left office? No economic downturn after 9-11?

As an aside, the Department of Justice has closely examined this phenomenon.

It is their conclusion that the vast majority of the spike in firearm violence between 1985 and 1995 was brought on by a single cohort of urban black juveniles.

This cohort has:
a) the most deaths (they tend to shoot each other)
b) the most incarcerations
c) and they have aged - most of them are no longer in gangs

The DOJ says this is the primary explanation for the spike and reduction.

No study has ever been able to show that our policing is more effective.

Many studies (including ones by anti-gun organizations) have shown that there is no nationwide correlation between the implementation and enforcement of gun laws and the crime rate.

Correcrtion, Whispering Legs: the CDC has decided, after evaluating the body of studies on violent crime in America, that none of them successfully proved their point either way.

(like the Bank of America shooting rampage in california)

The one where nobody got killed?

Personally, I find the word despite in the headline a particularly funny bit of prejudice against guns on the part of the CNS editor.

So you're saying there was no Bush recession? No recession that set in just as Clinton left office? No economic downturn after 9-11?

Not really sure things went bad, as the .coms came to pieces but you still have a fairly high level of employment in the US compared to 1985 and certainly compared to 1995 when the US economy was only getting going and only starting to trickle down to more and more people.



As an aside, the Department of Justice has closely examined this phenomenon.

It is their conclusion that the vast majority of the spike in firearm violence between 1985 and 1995 was brought on by a single cohort of urban black juveniles.

This cohort has:
a) the most deaths (they tend to shoot each other)
b) the most incarcerations
c) and they have aged - most of them are no longer in gangs

may i presume that these people tend to be at the bottom of the social strata and therefore more likely to benifit from a long term economic boom?



No study has ever been able to show that our policing is more effective.


I think the people of New York would disagree.

http://http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/nycrime.htm

Thing is compared to recession times 1980-85 New York todays is a far safer place to live, thanks to more effective policing (please argue other wise) and or course the boom through the mid to late 90's.

Maybe Policing isn't that effective in your area, well if not perhaps you should bug your local community leaders that maybe it might be a good idea.

Not really sure things went bad, as the .coms came to pieces but you still have a fairly high level of employment in the US compared to 1985 and certainly compared to 1995 when the US economy was only getting going and only starting to trickle down to more and more people.


The death rate in that cohort is really appalling. For a while, they constituted the majority of firearm deaths.

Things did get bad in the US for Bush's first term, coming in on a recession and staying there past 9-11. If you wish, you can ask the Democratic Party for figures on how bad it was.

It wasn't so bad for the people with good jobs and money, but the poor were screwed.

They're still screwed. That cohort isn't any better off now than they were then.

The initial wave of crack and gangs fueled the violence in that cohort. Most of them are now in their mid-30s - the ones who aren't dead or in jail.

You're under the misconception that people kill each other because they're poor. This is not true. These were turf wars between one illegal businessman and another. Men who were making a lot of money. Or should I say teenagers.

I'd say that all of those things coming together made it happen. Kind of like how the more ingredients used, the better the burrito...

Maybe but finding a 9mm round in my Burrito is going to worry me ;)

Either way it really seems to me that if the only way to reduce crime in your country is to go out and own 300million guns, then ican't help but feel that the price of being free in America is very, very expsenive.

Maybe but finding a 9mm round in my Burrito is going to worry me ;)

Either way it really seems to me that if the only way to reduce crime in your country is to go out and own 300million guns, then ican't help but feel that the price of being free in America is very, very expsenive.

Better than a police state with video cameras everywhere, and the police up to their eyeballs in your personal information.

You're under the misconception that people kill each other because they're poor. This is not true. These were turf wars between one illegal businessman and another. Men who were making a lot of money. Or should I say teenagers.

Nope not at all, but thank you for that little incite into your mind, most intesting.

But if people are poor the lengths they have to go to get work and survive become orme extreme. There was a really good program in Britain where a guy earned $1000 a month from working at mcdonald's and the person who lived next door delt drugs and made $1000 a day...fact is in that area that's all there was in terms of employment...so you have two choices Mcdonalds or dealing and being drawn into that illegality.

Nope not at all, but thank you for that little incite into your mind, most intesting.

But if people are poor the lengths they have to go to get work and survive become orme extreme. There was a really good program in Britain where a guy earned $1000 a month from working at mcdonald's and the person who lived next door delt drugs and made $1000 a day...fact is in that area that's all there was in terms of employment...so you have two choices Mcdonalds or dealing and being drawn into that illegality.

There are few jobs that earn $1000 per day. So few in fact, that by that logic, we should all go out and become drug dealers.

Better than a police state with video cameras everywhere, and the police up to their eyeballs in your personal information.

But that really doesn't bother me, i think CCTV is misguided and i do't care if the Police have bio-metric data about me.

But I'm much less likely to get murdered in Britain compared to the USA and call me perverse but i think being murdered is a far greater attack on my civil liberties than a few cameras...

There are few jobs that earn $1000 per day. So few in fact, that by that logic, we should all go out and become drug dealers.

Except that a lot of people out there are good law abiding citizens that have been indoctrinated with the idea that we should go out to work (still think your free?) i could never deal drugs unless my situation got so bad.

However the point which you missed is that the positives in poor areas and so few that a job dealing drugs seems like a god send. You would in that situation have to be a fool to not do it. Of course a lot of people have a conscience.

But that really doesn't bother me, i think CCTV is misguided and i do't care if the Police have bio-metric data about me.

But I'm much less likely to get murdered in Britain compared to the USA and call me perverse but i think being murdered is a far greater attack on my civil liberties than a few cameras...

It has little to do with guns here, whether you're murdered or not. The primary indicators of whether or not you're going to be murdered here are:

1. Race - if you're African-American, raise your risk
2. Gender - if you're male, raise your risk
3. Age - if you're between the ages of 19 and 25, raise your risk
4. Drug use - even if you don't sell them, raise your risk

In combination, these are a far greater indicator of your risk of murder than being around a gun.

If you fall into all of those categories, you're screwed. You have a very high chance of going to prison for a felony, and a high chance of being killed before you reach your 25th birthday.

If you eliminate all African-American on African-American murder (firearm and non-firearm) from the statistics, there's a huge drop in murder overall. They are killing each other.

If whites were killing them at the same rate, they would be accused of genocide.

Except that a lot of people out there are good law abiding citizens that have been indoctrinated with the idea that we should go out to work (still think your free?) i could never deal drugs unless my situation got so bad.

However the point which you missed is that the positives in poor areas and so few that a job dealing drugs seems like a god send. You would in that situation have to be a fool to not do it. Of course a lot of people have a conscience.
You really need to read Freakonomics (http://www.freakonomics.com/) and the supporting data.

The majority of inner city drug dealers make less dealing drugs than they would working at a fast food joint.

Excerpt from Chapter 3: "Why Do Drug Dealers Still Live with Their Moms?"

In other words, a crack gang works pretty much like the standard capitalist enterprise: you have to be near the top of the pyramid to make a big wage. Notwithstanding the leadership's rhetoric about the family nature of the business, the gang's wages are about as skewed as wages in corporate America. A foot soldier had plenty in common with a McDonald's burger flipper or a Wal-Mart shelf stocker. In fact, most of J. T.'s foot soldiers also held minimum-wage jobs in the legitimate sector to supplement their skimpy illicit earnings. The leader of another crack gang once told Venkatesh that he could easily afford to pay his foot soldiers more, but it wouldn't be prudent. "You got all these niggers below you who want your job, you dig?" he said. "So, you know, you try to take care of them, but you know, you also have to show them you the boss. You always have to get yours first, or else you really ain't no leader. If you start taking losses, they see you as weak and shit."

Along with the bad pay, the foot soldiers faced terrible job conditions. For starters, they had to stand on a street corner all day and do business with crackheads. (The gang members were strongly advised against using the product themselves, advice that was enforced by beatings if necessary.) Foot soldiers also risked arrest and, more worri- some, violence. Using the gang's financial documents and the rest of Venkatesh's research, it is possible to construct an adverse-events index of J. T.'s gang during the four years in question. The results are astonishingly bleak. If you were a member of J. T.'s gang for all four years, here is the typical fate you would have faced during that period:


Number of times arrested 5.9
Number of nonfatal wounds or injuries 2.4 (not including injuries meted out by the gang itself for rules violations)
Chance of being killed 1 in 4

A 1-in-4 chance of being killed! Compare these odds to being a timber cutter, which the Bureau of Labor Statistics calls the most dangerous job in the United States. Over four years' time, a timber cutter would stand only a 1-in-200 chance of being killed. Or compare the crack dealer's odds to those of a death row inmate in Texas, which executes more prisoners than any other state. In 2003, Texas put to death twenty-four inmates-or just 5 percent of the nearly 500 inmates on its death row during that time. Which means that you stand a greater chance of dying while dealing crack in a Chicago housing project than you do while sitting on death row in Texas. So if crack dealing is the most dangerous job in America, and if the salary is only $3.30 an hour, why on earth would anyone take such a job?

Just like in the Evil Corporate World, US Drug Dealers have a very stratified compensation pyramid. Sure, if you are particulary lucky, good or ruthless you can start making 6 figures in a very few years... but most never will.

Just like in the Evil Corporate World, US Drug Dealers have a very stratified compensation pyramid. Sure, if you are particulary lucky, good or ruthless you can start making 6 figures in a very few years... but most never will.

It's rather like telling some kid on the street to practice playing basketball instead of studying in school. They get their hopes up that maybe they'll play college ball, or even the NBA...

but the odds are so slim...

We sell lottery tickets to people like that.

Maybe but finding a 9mm round in my Burrito is going to worry me ;)

Either way it really seems to me that if the only way to reduce crime in your country is to go out and own 300million guns, then ican't help but feel that the price of being free in America is very, very expsenive.

Obviously, you've never been to Tiajuana... :D

Security and freedom are two seperate things. I actually rarely carry my gun, since I can't carry it into NYC to work.

That said, I'd rather HAVE it when I'm on the subway at 11pm...

Obviously, you've never been to Tiajuana... :D
Security and freedom are two seperate things. I actually rarely carry my gun, since I can't carry it into NYC to work. That said, I'd rather HAVE it when I'm on the subway at 11pm...
Bernie, who let you out...? Remember what happened last time... :p

Another case of the government not knowing anything....