Gotta love this guy.....
- Thread starter bornaneer
- Start date
I guess his tactic is "Use statistics to prove my point.....until newer statistics disprove my point and then change subject....." I guess step #3 will be name-calling (ex. Libtard).
Crime is up? You can provide statistics to support that? I know that murders were lower under de Blasio than either Giuliani or Bloomberg. de Blasio's first year in office had the lowest murder rate in NY in almost 100 years. It went up a little in his second year, but it's down this year from last. If you are measuring from a recent low point, of course there was an increase. You are generating a trend based on 2 points.
I will agree that NY is doing a much better job of protecting its citizens than Chicago. The gun laws in the 2 cities are very similar though. The policing aspect is the difference. I'm not sure of the size of the Chicago PD relative to the NYPD. I'm also not sure about relative policing philosophies. The NYPD has said that they prefer to not stop and frisk because that drives a wedge between them and the communities they are policing. They feel like they get more cooperation from people if they aren't seen as the enemy.
Not really, his stats revealed a low number of gun confiscations when the measuring stick was for crime rates, not gun confiscations. Both of them had a rational argument, but the stats provided by mule didn't really refute the points being made by airport.
Still remains the verified crime rates between the two arguments.
2014 murders were up 33% in the first two months and up 20% in the first two months in 2015. That's the only numbers I could find. That's Demoron's numbers.
2014 first two months murder up 33% and in 2015 first two months up another 20%. This is Deblasio's numbers. He inherited a better police department than the one Guiliani got. Guiliani made it better.
Last edited:
Good aggressive police work decreases crime. Looking at some the research, the more misdemeanors that were given, the lower the murder rate and violent crime rate. Makes sense, the more active the police force, not being held back by PC tactics or liberals, the lower the crime rate.
His point was that the murder rate was climbing in NYC under de Blasio. My point was that he was wrong. The number of murders in any year under de Blasio's first couple of years is lower than the all but one year under Bloomberg and significantly lower than any year under Giuliani. The stats for the current partial year are lower than last year. He was trying to make a trend analysis off of 2 points (great for geometry, horrible for statistics), but he also failed to mention that his starting point was the lowest murder rate in NYC in nearly a century.
I don't think we can say I'm right or he's right at this point with respect to the murder rate. Even if the rates climb some under de Blasio, that doesn't mean we are justified in stripping people of their fourth amendment rights. There are probable cause reasons to make stops, ask to conduct searches, etc. I'm not arguing that. I disagree with Airport on what constitutes probable cause. Standing on a corner or being out late don't qualify as probable cause to me.
We can agree that good police work decreases crime. Chicago is an example of how not to do it. Doesn't matter what the laws are, the government in Chicago isn't getting it done.
What were the end of year numbers in 2014? Homicides were at 328 in 2014. That was the lowest per capita rate recorded, and a lower total number than any recorded since prior to 1928. There were 352 homicides in 2015. That was lower than all but one year of Bloomberg's time in office (332 in 2013). Half way through 2016 (as of 6/27/16), there had been 160 homicides in NYC, down 8.6% from the same time period in 2015.
de Blasio absolutely inherited a better police department than Giuliani did.
But why were those historically low rates? I believe causation is the point he was making. With that said, I'm not in favor of S&F.
Stop and frisk wasn't stopped, but it was seriously limited. At it's peak in terms of stops (2011, I believe) they stopped almost 700k people. That means they stopped almost 1% of the population of the city. While looking for data to check things out, I read that they are on schedule to have 25k or fewer stops this year.
Like I said, I'm not sure he isn't right. It's possible that stop and frisk was a deterrent to carrying a weapon. We don't have any good evidence to support that yet. They are finding tons of illegal guns with a huge drop in stop and frisk. That's not necessarily causal either, but they've been doing this for too sort of a time to get a real definitive feel for how it will work. There are a ton of other factors that we are ignoring in all of this too. What does unemployment look like? Have there been changes to homeless policies or programs? What are the drug abuse statistics? What are the gang stats and policing policies? Are they funding after school programs more or less? We're all looking at this in the vacuum of police policy relative to stop and frisk. That's a mistake.
Somehow, this all got me thinking of the Andy Taylor school of police work. I remember him saying that he didn't wear a gun all the time because he wanted people to respect the office, not fear the gun. I realize that was a fictional town, and it doesn't translate to the real world that simply. I think the overall lesson is good though. If you create an environment when the cops are people to be feared instead of respected, you end up with a ton of problems. The way to correct that problem is to have the police working within the community, not against the community. I think stop and frisk makes people worry that the police are working against them. Of course, there's also the issue of it being counter to the 4th amendment, IMHO.
Approximately 7.6 million people die each year of cancer....and almost 4 million prematurely because it wasn't detected early enough for treatment......health insurance problem? Let's see......we only have so much money to spend.....do we spend it on more cops or do we get cheaper health care and more preventative treatments?????? Hmmm......so many difficult choices.....
Did you really just suggest that we should spend less money on police at a local and state level so we can spend more more on affordable insurance presumanly on a state and national level? That is our choice? Why not spend more on both and spend less money on welfare for people who are in our country illegally?