California city police seize 100 guns per month on average

[BigRob]

Just a question...but there is a lot of talk about enforcing "gun laws" which is one thing, however, is it a truism that the "law" is failing to be enforced?
Just a background to the above...we.. I say we..but Londoners...of which I'm not one... seem to be going through a bit of a knife crime wave at the moment. Seems that since its getting a tad warmer at night theres' a few more folk on the streets and gang members cannot walk their turf without coming home with holes in themselves. Anyway, there has been a number of banner headlines recently proclaiming that the police have lost control of the streets of London and the skies are going to fall in...plague....famine...the usual thing in London. Anyway is it the general view...I use that term guardedly...but are the Police still "in control" of the more noisome areas of the bigger cities...is this an issue discussed in your local papers?

I guess in a nutshell is there vocal pressure on the police and law enforcement to up their game..not only in respect of gun crime but criminality generally?

Of course - the media will always blow everything out of proportion - and people themselves contribute to the feeding frenzy. For example, the neighborhood I live in once had an armed robbery take place in a driveway. The people that live here went crazy - letters to the editor about the "crime wave" and the "lack of police presence", our neighborhood Facebook group exploding with comments about "WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING!!".

The whole thing ultimately turned into a fight about a group of residents trying to force everyone else to pony up roughly $500,000 (overall) for "extra security" for our area due to the "crime wave".. Of course all of this ignored actual crime statistics from the City that showed crime in our neighborhood (and area) was effectively non-existent, this was clearly a one off, there was no "crime spree" and the whole thing was a load of nonsense.

The residents demanding the extra money however had no interest in hearing that and the whole thing blew up into quite the fight - but thankfully the reality of the situation won out and people calmed down.

 

[Old_Trapper70]

No - you fail to grasp that "removing weapons from criminals" and just "removing weapons" are two entirely different things. I don't know of anyone that opposes the concept of removing weapons from criminals...except maybe the criminals themselves.

Tell that to the victims of the Las Vegas shooting, or back to Columbine, or even further.

 

[BigRob]

Tell that to the victims of the Las Vegas shooting, or back to Columbine, or even further.

Not interested in appeals to emotion taking the place of data and facts. Sorry.

 

[Old_Trapper70]

Of course - the media will always blow everything out of proportion - and people themselves contribute to the feeding frenzy. For example, the neighborhood I live in once had an armed robbery take place in a driveway. The people that live here went crazy - letters to the editor about the "crime wave" and the "lack of police presence", our neighborhood Facebook group exploding with comments about "WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING!!".

The whole thing ultimately turned into a fight about a group of residents trying to force everyone else to pony up roughly $500,000 (overall) for "extra security" for our area due to the "crime wave".. Of course all of this ignored actual crime statistics from the City that showed crime in our neighborhood (and area) was effectively non-existent, this was clearly a one off, there was no "crime spree" and the whole thing was a load of nonsense.

The residents demanding the extra money however had no interest in hearing that and the whole thing blew up into quite the fight - but thankfully the reality of the situation won out and people calmed down.

So you had some people feed into the paranoia caused by the gun nuts (NRA), and sought something unnecessary. Maybe they would have been better off buying a gun, and starting a Neighborhood Watch group.

 

[Old_Trapper70]

Not interested in appeals to emotion taking the place of data and facts. Sorry.

Actually your not into reality. Most homicides, and virtually all suicides, are caused by legally owned weapons, and emotional turmoil.

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF

 

[BigRob]

So you had some people feed into the paranoia caused by the gun nuts (NRA), and sought something unnecessary. Maybe they would have been better off buying a gun, and starting a Neighborhood Watch group.

LOL. The NRA was feeding paranoia on my neighborhood Facebook page!! HAHAH

 

[BigRob]

Actually your not into reality. Most homicides, and virtually all suicides, are caused by legally owned weapons, and emotional turmoil.

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF

Most homicides are also not mass shootings...and yet those are the examples you instantly bring up in an effort to justify your point.

 

[Old_Trapper70]

Most homicides are also not mass shootings...and yet those are the examples you instantly bring up in an effort to justify your point.

And still you chose to ignore the point. Would it have been better if I had listed individual murders? No, because, as I said before,you are not interested in truth.

 

[BigRob]

And still you chose to ignore the point. Would it have been better if I had listed individual murders? No, because, as I said before,you are not interested in truth.

No - it would have been better if you wanted to have a broad discussion about gun violence and homicides with guns to cite those statistics....rather than list a few mass shooting.

The simple fact is that homicide rates have been trending down for decades, gun violence has been trending down, while the number of guns in this country has exploded. To simply state "less guns means less violence" is not based on anything factual and is seemingly not even true.

Your statement of: "As usual you could not grasp the concept of lower crime caused by the removal of weapons" doesn't make any sense in the context of this discussion.

To argue "less guns in the hands of criminals means less violence" is a different argument that I won't really disagree with you about. Of course more policing in the areas that we know are high crime is going to impact crime rates. That is not rocket science. Why was Fresno ignoring these areas to begin with?

 

[Old_Trapper70]

The simple fact is that homicide rates have been trending down for decades, gun violence has been trending down, while the number of guns in this country has exploded. To simply state "less guns means less violence" is not based on anything factual and is seemingly not even true.

Wrong again as usual:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/25/us/violent-crime-murder-chicago-increase-.html

Your statement of: "As usual you could not grasp the concept of lower crime caused by the removal of weapons" doesn't make any sense in the context of this discussion.

This discussion is about the confiscation of guns, and the resultant reduction in crime including homicides. Did you even read this part of the OP:

"It's a daily routine of looking for gang members, and guns, a big contributor to a drop in violent crimes.

Its all part of Fresno Police Chief Jerry Dyer's dedication to bringing the number of shootings down in Fresno, currently at a 30% decrease from last year."

Why was Fresno ignoring these areas to begin with?

For the same reason that MS13 is allowed to act freely around the country. Lack of courage, lack of funds, and lack of will power.

Same reason people like you do nothing.

 

[dogtowner]

More deaths by blunt objects than all rifles.
Pols want to take "assault" rifles because they fear for their lives from them. As intended.

 

[BigRob]

Wrong again as usual:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/25/us/violent-crime-murder-chicago-increase-.html

For those of us who read your link...which I have to assume does not include you...

"While crime over all and violent crime remain well below their levels of the 1980s and 1990s, last year was the first time violent crime increased in consecutive years since 2005 and 2006, according to the F.B.I. data, which is collected from local police departments around the nation and released annually."

"There is disagreement not only about the reasons for the increases, but also about how law enforcement should respond and whether the figures represent a blip or the start of a long-term trend. The figures come against a backdrop of steady crime reductions nationally during the last 25 years."

That is what about 99% of people would call a "trend" down. Or is your assertion that a 2015-2016 blip is a new normal of rising crime across that the country? And if that is your actual argument - please explain how that accounts for the decades of crime trending down (with no dispute) and the increase in the amount of overall guns in the country during the same time period.

This discussion is about the confiscation of guns, and the resultant reduction in crime including homicides. Did you even read this part of the OP:

"It's a daily routine of looking for gang members, and guns, a big contributor to a drop in violent crimes.

Its all part of Fresno Police Chief Jerry Dyer's dedication to bringing the number of shootings down in Fresno, currently at a 30% decrease from last year."

Yes - confiscating illegally obtained guns from criminals in areas of town "infamous" for gang violence. You think that somehow translates into an argument for gun confiscation from law abiding people?

For the same reason that MS13 is allowed to act freely around the country. Lack of courage, lack of funds, and lack of will power.

Same reason people like you do nothing.

Fresno ignored areas infamous for gang violence because of me?!?....LOL.

 

[Old_Trapper70]

For those of us who read your link...which I have to assume does not include you...

"While crime over all and violent crime remain well below their levels of the 1980s and 1990s, last year was the first time violent crime increased in consecutive years since 2005 and 2006, according to the F.B.I. data, which is collected from local police departments around the nation and released annually."

"There is disagreement not only about the reasons for the increases, but also about how law enforcement should respond and whether the figures represent a blip or the start of a long-term trend. The figures come against a backdrop of steady crime reductions nationally during the last 25 years.'

Evidently you don't even read what you post:

"BigRob said: ↑
The simple fact is that homicide rates have been trending down for decades, gun violence has been trending down,"

That is what about 99% of people would call a "trend" down. Or is your assertion that a 2015-2016 blip is a new normal of rising crime across that the country? And if that is your actual argument - please explain how that accounts for the decades of crime trending down (with no dispute) and the increase in the amount of overall guns in the country during the same time period.

Gun sales declined while the Brady Bill was in effect. When Congress refused to renew the Brady Bill in 2004 sales began to pick up. Then with the elections of Obama, and the paranoia spread by the right wing of guns being confiscated, sales rapidly increased. As the sale increased so did the murder rate.

https://www.citylab.com/equity/2013/05/more-proof-assault-weapons-ban-worked/5578/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/frankm...ays-it-has-grown-158-since-obama-took-office/

Yes - confiscating illegally obtained guns from criminals in areas of town "infamous" for gang violence. You think that somehow translates into an argument for gun confiscation from law abiding people?

That was your claim, not mine. My claim was simply that fewer guns means less crime. Then too, most homicides are committed by "law abiding citizens".

Fresno ignored areas infamous for gang violence because of me?!?....LOL.

Again with the reading comprehension deficit. People like you, and depending on where you live then it might be because of you.

https://www.csgv.org/mass-shootings-by-good-guys/

 

[BigRob]

Evidently you don't even read what you post:

"BigRob said: ↑
The simple fact is that homicide rates have been trending down for decades, gun violence has been trending down,"

The above is fact.

Gun sales declined while the Brady Bill was in effect. When Congress refused to renew the Brady Bill in 2004 sales began to pick up. Then with the elections of Obama, and the paranoia spread by the right wing of guns being confiscated, sales rapidly increased. As the sale increased so did the murder rate.

The murder rate is not higher today than it was in 2004. You can point to a spike here and there but the overall trend for the last several decades has been down - notably falling before 1994 when the Brady Bill was even implemented.

That was your claim, not mine. My claim was simply that fewer guns means less crime.

There is no evidence to justify your statement. Data shows us that gun sales are up and the overall violent crime trend is down...

Then too, most homicides are committed by "law abiding citizens".

Law abiding citizens means they follow the law....homicide is against the law.

Again with the reading comprehension deficit. People like you, and depending on where you live then it might be because of you.

Ok.[/quote][/QUOTE]