Violent Crimes Up 18% In 2011

[4v50 Gary]

One should keep in mind that crime reports are dependent not only on people reporting crime, but the efficiency of the responding agency. If the responding agency won't respond, people generally get the message not to bother them.

Another thing to bear in mind is what Trends Forecaster Gerald Celente warned. As the economy continues to decline and people lose everything, they lose it. Crime will increase as the depression continues. Fernando Aguirre (Surviving the Economic Collapse) is a survivor of Agrentina's collapse (2001). He wrote about how crime skyrocked and the reduced police resources concentrated in: (1) gubmint centers (2) rich neighborhoods. Everyone one else was everyman for himself.

 

[orionengnr]

"These simple assaults are so low-level in severity that they are not even included in the FBI counts of serious crime," Fox said. FBI crime data only counts aggravated assaults."

..and different agencies determine what to report, often for their own reasons. Makes it difficult to separate the apples from the kumquats (perhaps intentionally).

Due to "financial constraints", certain jurisdictions no longer respond to property crimes unless someone is injured. They may or may not fill out a police report...and if no report is submitted, I am betting that those crimes are unreported and therefore, never occurred at the Federal "counting" level.

This will reduce the numbers, albeit artificially. As time goes on, I have less and less faith in what I read and see reported.

If you are old enough to remember the Soviet Union, they had a highly developed system whereby every "precinct" or whatever they called it, was expected to produce XX lbs/tons of grain, gallons of fuel, or rounds of 7.62x39 ammo per week/month/year. If you were in charge of that reporting district, it was imperative that you showed that your workers had produced 100% or more of your quota, month after month, year after year.

It should come as no surprise that while everyone consistently reported (and had documentation "proving") that they had produced 110% of their quota, there were systemic shortages of everything.

The only thing they actually succeeded at producing 100%+ was vodka...and reports.

In the less-than-one generation since we broke the back of the Soviet Union, we have (in parts of our Government) assimilated and internalized their practices...

 

[beatledog7]

What you are suggesting is a cursory dismissal without actual examination and in saying such, dismissing all analyses, not just the ones you don't like. Of course, since you are dismissing the analysis as untrustworthy without looking at the information or methods, you are also dismissing the data as well. If you say statistical data can be made to tell any story you want, and you did say this, then you are saying that the data cannot be trusted it will obviously fit any interpretation.

Not at all. I don't dismiss analysis. I do attempt to decipher it, and part of that process is to consider whose analysis it is and what related motivation he or she may have. No human being is totally objective.

I'm saying that if one wishes to understand what the data mean to him, he must do his own analysis of the data. Otherwise, he is getting an interpretation that includes criteria and factors he cannot fully know; he will only know what the analyst chooses to reveal regarding how that analysis was conducted. Unless he has all the unaltered raw data and is comfortable with how it was collected, any analysis he reads should be taken with a grain of salt.

Whether one "likes" a particular interpretation/analysis of data or not does have a bearing on his intellectual skepticism of how it was derived. It could be argued that the rational man is more skeptical about interpretations that support his position than he is of those that oppose his position. In other words, if someone seems to be telling you exactly what you want to hear, you should listen more closely.

 

[mortablunt]

It had to come up sometime...

 

[CornCod]

I would be reluctant to look at any rises either in UCR or victimization studies over a one year period as proof of a significant rise in crime. If the trend continues over the next two or three years I would begin to sit up and take notice.

 

[bhesler]

Looks like final UCR numbers are in line with preliminary numbers from May.

From the NRA:
http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/a...-it-less-crime-again.aspx?s=fbi+crime&st=&ps=

Link from article to FBI numbers:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-4

 

[Trent]

Yeah that's a pretty decent sized upswing. Goes in lockstep with what we're seeing in Illinois. Parts of Chicago are veritable warzones; and in the country armed home invasions are on the rise (even locally, downstate, which has me all sorts of concerned).

We've been running "home invasion preparedness drills" in my house once monthly. That way my kids know where to go and what to do in the event several bad guys kick in the door at night. (A nearby home was robbed by 5 intruders recently, who were armed - they hit two houses in one night specifically targeting firearms.)

Anyway 5 on 1 odds? Locally? That got me a hell of a lot more serious about home defense and how we do certain things here. I don't like those odds, and have taken steps to help keep the deck stacked in my favor if it happens to us.

Peace through superior firepower. More than one person can shoot in this house, and their competency levels are rapidly increasing through regular training.

 

[Charlesincharge]

Sounds like liberal agenda at work with your tax dollars.