2 maps of NY City: Compare Gun Ownership -VS- number of Felonies

[melensdad]

Check out this image from the anti-gun New York Times newspaper:

If image is now showing, follow this link: N.Y. / Region > Image >

Please compare the areas with the highest gun ownership.

Please also compare the areas with the highest rates of felonies.

Notice anything

Almost without exception the areas with the high gun ownership have very low rates of felonies. And conversely, in many cases the areas with low gun ownership have a higher rate of felonies.

Anyone want to explain this?

 

[asystole86]

Criminals have a self preservation instinct, and hoodlums probably know who will protect themselves and who wont

 

[GIJEW]

Given that we're talking about NYC, the areas with higher numbers of licensed/registered gun owners are probably populated by more rich, politically connected people living in gated communities. Just another variable to consider.

 

[melensdad]

Given that we're talking about NYC, the areas with higher numbers of licensed/registered gun owners are probably populated by more rich, politically connected people living in gated communities. Just another variable to consider.

This map is of New York City. I've walked much of that city, crossed Manhatten on foot. Never seen a gated community in that city. I'm sure there are many gated suburbs but this map is Queens, Harlem, the Bronx, Manhatten, Brooklyn and Staten Island.

 

[IndyBeerman]

My goodness, Mayor Bloomberg surely will have an explanation for the erroneous info that is being spewed about.

 

[Necessary Evil]

GIJEW is absolutely correct. Like everything else, statistics are always geared towards the point a person is trying to make, like politicians who use the same example to prove two different points. Very extensive research has been done about crime rates and it turns out that it has very little to do with race, age, gun ownership, rural or urban, and mostly to do with income level, the poorer you are, the more likely you are to commit a violent crime.

 

[Bapak2ja]

GIJEW is absolutely correct. Like everything else, statistics are always geared towards the point a person is trying to make, like politicians who use the same example to prove two different points. Very extensive research has been done about crime rates and it turns out that it has very little to do with race, age, gun ownership, rural or urban, and mostly to do with income level, the poorer you are, the more likely you are to commit a violent crime.

Please give the link to that research. Also, provide the documentation on who paid for that research. I want to see the bias of the researchers. Every research project and researcher has a bias, nothing new there, but I want to see how these researchers adapted their methods to generate accurate data—it is possible to do so and legitimate research must make a determined effort to do so. Any research that shows that the violent crime is directly linked to the income level is suspect in my mind. I will not believe it until I can assess the methods used to generate that data.

I have lived and worked among the poorest of the poor in this world—Indonesian Dayaks and Danis (one generation out of the Stone Age), with the Dalits of India, with the dispossessed tea garden workers in West Bengal, with those who live in the garbage dump or in the old cemetery in Surabaya. None of them are violent unless threatened. They are more honest than most Americans (within their cultural frame work of honesty), and very generous. They work hard to provide for their wives and children. They stay with their children and teach them to love family, to be honest, to work for their own needs, to be faithful to their spouse. They are good people.

The violence comes from those who desire to oppress them—the government, the gangs, the triads, the rebel movements, the demented fools who will do anything to get and keep power. The violence comes from those who think they are entitled to something because of wrongs done to their ancestors, or because of their gender or sexual orientation. These people think the wealth of others is theirs for the taking, demanding that what others have worked to obtain should be given to them because of past wrongs or discrimination. They refuse to work, preferring to steal or leach from those who work to provide for their families.

Do not attempt to prove poverty leads to crime. It is not true outside the false research done by liberal politicians and their snobbish elite colleagues filled with hubris beyond measure. If you do not believe it, buy the tickets and let me take you to meet the poorest of the poor, the salt of the earth.

Pardon the rant. That comment really lit my fire.

 

[jsharmon7]

I'm going to have to side with GIJEW and Necessary Evil:

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/census/mpsf3inc1.pdf

It would appear that the maps posted in the OP jive pretty well with the "wealth map" in the link above. Sure it's nice to say that it's the gun ownership that reduces the crime, but it appears to me that it's more to do with the income level of those that reside in the area. Just my two cents...

EDIT: Lower Manhattan seems to be anomaly, but the rest is spot on.

 

[Hornett]

I don't get it.

Rich people don't get robbed?
They have more security?
They are paying the criminals to rob someone else?
While I understand what you are saying I just don't understand the details.

 

[jsharmon7]

I don't get it.

Rich people don't get robbed?
They have more security?
They are paying the criminals to rob someone else?
While I understand what you are saying I just don't understand the details.

Are you from Indy by chance? If not, this may not make any sense. But, which area has more crime: Meridian Hills or Haughville? Geist or Brightwood? By nature, poorer areas have more crime than wealthier areas. So to say that the maps in the OP show that gun ownership means less crime may not be entirely accurate. It may be that crime is lower in those areas already because the areas are wealthier areas. The fact that gun ownership is higher in those areas may be due to the fact that the wealthier people have the money and political connections to get gun permits that are so hard to come by in a place like New York City. This is just my theory anyway, I could be wrong. I'd love to believe that this proves that gun ownership reduces crime, but I don't want to jump to conclusions when other factors may be at work.

EDIT: Another thing to think about: the stats were provided by NYPD for handgun permit holders. Maybe a reason why permit holders are underrepresented in the poor/high crime areas is because gangbangers don't have handgun permits. Who knows what the "gun possession" rates are in those areas.

 

[rjstew317]

it's obvious whats going on here. all the evil gun owners are travailing to these neighborhoods full of upstanding unarmed citizens and committing heinous violent crimes against them.

 

[GeneralCarver]

Its funny that the cities are the areas that we need the 2nd Amendment the most for protection and yet, they attack it the most. It shows that the local Governments of these cities really don't care about their residents safety. They just want to be sure the Government is the only one who has the most firepower and care less if you get shanked by some mugger walking home from your job at the local gas station or something. I would argue that poor minorities are the ones who need the 2nd Amendment the most and you have these stupid cities like CHITcago and NYC that ban certain guns (like Hi Points) for "safety reasons". All that does is keep poor minorities from obtaining affordable weapons they can use for self/home defense. And I seriously believe that is not an accident. I think its intentional because they want to keep the crime rates up, it creates the "need" for government to try and solve the crime problem. Keeping crime up can help keep Government "needed" and big, if you follow me.

 

[finity]

Wow.

Even with my general distrust of the government there's no way I could easily believe that there is a widespread national conspiracy to maintain the crime rate higher to justify their own power. I could believe it on a smaller scale - say a group of high ranking officials allowing an event to occur to gain public support for an otherwise unpopular policy that benefits them & their cronies - but not on a general level.

I think that generally many people really honestly (mistakenly) believe that gun-control will make us all safer. They see all the crime on TV (not realizing that the crime rate is actually fairly low) & think "we've got to do SOMETHING". That's where gun-control mostly comes from. Not from some long-term sinister plans of our government to oppress us...yet.

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions".

Even the evil that Hitler did was done under the belief that he was helping the "German people" (aka Aryans).

 

[Hornett]

jsharmon:
Thanks for the reply.
I don't know much about indy, I'm from down here in Bedford.
But, I do (and always have) understood your point.
There is less crime in rich communities.
But my question is more about the logistics.
Why is there less crime in the rich areas.
More security?
Better police presence?
See, If I were a criminal, it would make sense to go to the area of the city with the most valuables.
Maybe the criminals are too lazy to travel more than a few blocks to rob someone?
See, it's the 'why' I am trying understand.

 

[dross]

jsharmon:
Thanks for the reply.
I don't know much about indy, I'm from down here in Bedford.
But, I do (and always have) understood your point.
There is less crime in rich communities.
But my question is more about the logistics.
Why is there less crime in the rich areas.
More security?
Better police presence?
See, If I were a criminal, it would make sense to go to the area of the city with the most valuables.
Maybe the criminals are too lazy to travel more than a few blocks to rob someone?
See, it's the 'why' I am trying understand.

Criminals tend to prey on people who are like them demographically. Crime is more of a lifestyle than a planned event.

The main reason there is less crime in wealthier areas is that there are less criminals there.

The number one highest predictor of crime is a factor I won't name. It ain't poverty. If you look at the FBI crime statistics for cities, one factor stands out more than any other. You'll have to look it up yourself.

 

[Hornett]

And you give me homework.

 

[MrSmitty]

jsharmon:
Thanks for the reply.
I don't know much about indy, I'm from down here in Bedford.
But, I do (and always have) understood your point.
There is less crime in rich communities.
But my question is more about the logistics.
Why is there less crime in the rich areas.
More security?
Better police presence?
See, If I were a criminal, it would make sense to go to the area of the city with the most valuables.
Maybe the criminals are too lazy to travel more than a few blocks to rob someone?
See, it's the 'why' I am trying understand.

The poor people can't travel far in NYC because cars are restricted too.....I bet if you looked at car ownership in those areas, the rich have more of those too!!......gun's-restricted.....cars-restricted... i've got it! more cars..less crime!!???

 

[jsharmon7]

Criminals tend to prey on people who are like them demographically. Crime is more of a lifestyle than a planned event.

The main reason there is less crime in wealthier areas is that there are less criminals there.

The number one highest predictor of crime is a factor I won't name. It ain't poverty. If you look at the FBI crime statistics for cities, one factor stands out more than any other. You'll have to look it up yourself.

This ^^^^

Also, wealthier areas tend not to have problems with drugs and gangs that poor areas have. Take away drug addicts stealing to support their habit and you'll see a significant drop in crime. Gangs fighting over neighborhoods will also raise the crime rate. There are a lot of factors, and I know I'm missing many more, but this gives a general idea of the "why."

 

[vz. 61]

I assume that there are just as many gun owners in the high-crime areas as there are in the low-crime ones, they just aren't on paper. I don't think I will ever be convinced that firearm ownership has any correlation (either way) with crime rates.

 

[GIJEW]

I'm going to have to side with GIJEW and Necessary Evil:

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/census/mpsf3inc1.pdf

It would appear that the maps posted in the OP jive pretty well with the "wealth map" in the link above. Sure it's nice to say that it's the gun ownership that reduces the crime, but it appears to me that it's more to do with the income level of those that reside in the area. Just my two cents...

EDIT: Lower Manhattan seems to be anomaly, but the rest is spot on.

Bapak2ja is absolutely right about how poverty does not equal criminality. However, it seems that poor criminals tend to be muggers and burglers etc. while wealthy criminals are the "white collar" type. The result isthat poor neighborhoods are where violent crime is concentrated.
It's true Melensdad, the premium on real estate prevents typical gated communities in NYC, but there ARE exclusive apartments with doormen/bouncers and penthouses. My point was that in NYC, legal gun ownership is concentrated among the social "elite" who don't live in high crime areas and therefore the stats don't say that much about gun ownership preventing crime.