Well written. This kind of data driven breakdown really works for me. I do have one critique. If you are interested in reaching someone who is skeptical, you should try to anticipate and acknowledge their feelings whenever you can. Not saying to pander, but where there is common ground, make sure they notice it.
"Things took a terrible turn for the worse after George Floyd died"
It may seem small, but "when George Floyd was killed" would go a long way.
"when George Floyd was murdered" would be consistent with the conviction and go even further.
Thanks Glen, for this thoughtful article. But it sorely misses some things. We’ve just had 10 people murdered because they are black by a self proclaimed white supremacist. We have now a Republican party (not the one I joined 30 years ago) that now boldly perpetuates racist tropes and has given a comfortable home to white supremacist and their grievances. And happily divides us. Republics-white- is good. Democrat- blk- is bad/dangerous to country. Our own FBI has for a number of years now warned of the growing numbers of avowed white supremacist within police forces across the country. Do you not think that these need addressing in the most strenuous and swift manner? Our politicians on the right along with their mouth pieces at Fox News should seriously be held accountable. They are fomenting hate. It seems You’re letting them off the hook here. Platforms online are radicalizing young white men, turning them into hate-filled murdering terrorists. Those platforms need to be held accountable. We’d do so if there were Muslims being radicalized, right? The willingness to harm or kill blk bodies didn’t begin with Travvon but many many years before that.. we all know this. There’s a deeper, nasty history there and it’s not been handled well. We’ve a very serious problem here. I find it quite interesting to talk about the “low” number of unarmed blk men shot and killed by officers. Both Dylan Roof and the heavily armed Payton Gendron after slaughtering numerous innocents were taken into custody.
Thanks for your comment. What happened in Buffalo was tragic, but we should be careful about drawing broad conclusions from one incident. A report from the ADL says that "extremists" killed 29 people in 2021 and 23 people in 2020. Here's an extended excerpt from their report:
Every year people with ties to a variety of extreme movements and causes kill people in the United States; the ADL Center on Extremism tracks these murders. Extremists regularly commit murders in the service of their ideology, in the service of a group or gang they may belong to, or while engaging in traditional, non-ideological criminal activities.
In 2021, domestic extremists killed at least 29 people in the United States, in 19 separate incidents. This represents a modest increase from the 23 extremist-related murders documented in 2020 but is far lower than the number of murders committed in any of the five years prior (which ranged from 45 to 78).
The 2021 murder totals were low primarily because no high-casualty extremist-related shooting spree occurred this past year. Such sprees are the main contributor to high murder totals.
Most of the murders (26 of 29) were committed by right-wing extremists, which is usually the case. However, two killings were committed by Black nationalists and one by an Islamist extremist—the latter being the first such killing since 2018.
Most of the 2021 murders were committed by people associated with longstanding extremist movements, such as white supremacy and the sovereign citizen movement. However, 2021 continued the trend of recent years of seeing some murders from newer types of extremism, including QAnon adherents, people associated with the toxic masculinity subculture of the “manosphere” and anti-vaccination extremists.
White supremacists killed more people in 2021 than any other type of extremist, though not an outright majority, as is often the case. An in-depth look at white supremacist killings over the past 10 years demonstrates the dangers posed by alt right white supremacists and white supremacist prison gangs.
We also have to put the Buffalo tragedy in the context of what NPR says have been 198 mass shootings so far this year:
It is also the 198th mass shooting in 2022. With just over 19 weeks into the year, this averages out to about 10 such attacks a week.
The tally comes from the Gun Violence Archive, an independent data collection organization. The group defines a mass shooting as an incident in which four or more people are shot or killed, excluding the shooter. The full list of mass shootings in 2022 can be found here.
Prior to the Buffalo attack, the largest-scale mass shooting this year was at a car show in Dumas, Ark., on March 19. That attack killed one person and injured 27.
The link didn't carry through with the cut and paste, but here's a link for the Gun Violence Archive site referenced above:
None of this is to minimize your concerns, but it's way too easy to say this group or that group is responsible for violence. The reality is that we've experienced a big increase in homicides in recent years that experts are struggling to explain. Extremists account for a small percentage of the total. .
Clifton, that was an interesting read. However, what if, contrary to your premise, economics are not the primary driver of the increase in the crime rate? Off the top of my head, I have some alternate ideas…
1) guns. I know that guns don’t kill people, people kill people and all that. However, it is clearly the case that impulsively killing a person or people is a lot easier with a gun lying around and gun ownership seems to be increasing. I wonder if the rest of the western world is also experiencing an increase in crime, or if that is an American phenomenon. Solutions, if that is the case, are easy but probably will never happen politically.
2) there is a biological phenomenon where animals (and humans are animals) in groups become more aggressive when resources become scarce. Perhaps COVID with all of the disruptions to our daily lives has triggered a sense of scarcity, particularly in cities where people are most densely packed. If this is the cause, it should work itself out in time as life gets back to normal (assuming it ever does).
3) another biology hypothesis… apparently even hearing someone be rude to another person can activate our fight or flight instincts, increasing aggression. Not only has civility taken a serious down turn (blame social media if you like) but everywhere I go everyone seems to feel under attack. From conservatives who fear some scheme of being systematically replaced to minority groups touting increases in hate crimes on the liberal side of things. I hear something is “under attack” everywhere I turn. Do you remember the story of the off-duty police officer shooting a young man with, I think it was autism, because he bumped into him in line at Costco? People just aren’t built to be under constant stress, we act out. This would be difficult to change, but ii think doable with maybe more access to mental healthcare and paid leave…? And most importantly turning down the temperature on basically everything.
4) a counter-intuitive economic hypothesis. We know that how wealthy we feel is relative to those around us less than on an objective basis. What if the economic growth is unevenly felt and is actually increasing the feelings of not having enough among those that are not doing better? I guess that would fall under the large heading of inequality, but it’s a pretty specific kind. It would seem possible that your next door neighbor buying a new x box when you can’t pay the rent would be more upsetting than Elon Musk’s billions. I’m not sure how that hypothesis would be tested and worse if that were a cause, what a solution would be.
Thanks for your comment. I don't think we understand gun violence well enough to say with certainty what caused the homicide spike. Here's an excerpt from a CDC report that was published last week:
Firearm homicides and suicides represent persistent and significant U.S. public health concerns. In 2020, 79% of all homicides and 53% of all suicides involved firearms (somewhat
higher than during the preceding 5 years, when 73%–75% of all homicides and 50%–51% of all suicides involved firearms each year) (1). Although all population groups experience
firearm homicides and suicides, some are disproportionately affected. Firearm homicide rates are consistently highest among males, adolescents and young adults, and non-Hispanic Black
or African American (Black) and non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaska Native (AI/AN) persons; firearm suicide rates are highest among males, older adults, and non-Hispanic White
(White) and AI/AN persons (1). Economic conditions in communities contribute to risk for
violence, including firearm-related violence, and related racial and ethnic inequities (2). For example, multiple indicators (e.g., income inequality, unemployment, and housing and
economic instability) are associated with risk for homicide and suicide (3–5). Youth firearm homicide and suicide rates have been associated with poverty at the county level (6), and
the percentage of youths living in conditions of household poverty is higher among racial and ethnic minority populations (6). The economic and social challenges associated with the
COVID-19 pandemic could have exacerbated such risks (2,7).
People like Jens Ludwig at the University of Chicago have a slightly different take. Here's a link to an essay he wrote for CNN that was published last month:
He makes a nuanced argument that I can't summarize in a few sentences. The gist of it is that gun violence is a "behavioral" issue that can be addressed if society is willing to commit enough resources. He thinks it would cost $1 billion per year to reduce the violence in Chicago by 50% according to this Chicago Sun-Times article:
Arne Duncan, former Secretary of Education, is now the CEO of a group called CRED. They're also quoted in the article above and say it would cost just over $400 million per year for five years to get violence "under control" in Chicago.
I've seen others who support your point about the big spike in legal gun purchases that occurred in recent years.
People like former NYC Police Commissioner Bill Bratton have a different point of view. They place much of the blame at the feet of "progressive" prosecutors and politicians:
Bratton — who returned to helm the NYPD between 2014 and 2016 and also led the Los Angeles and Boston police departments — blamed the increase in crime on left-wing prosecutors and politicians.
“The cause of our current crime problem … is political,” he said. “The idea that so many of our legislators, governors, mayors around the country and in Washington are much more focused on the rights of defendants and less focused on the rights of the victims. We have seen this horrific breakdown in the criminal justice system.
“At one time prosecutors worked closely with police,” he added. “Now, they spend more time ignoring them.”
Bratton has praised Mayor Eric Adams’ public safety approach and wished the retired NYPD captain “luck” with the criminal justice system “mess” created by state politicians.
He had a grim forecast for both the Big Apple and the US.
“Things … will get worse. That is my prediction,” Bratton said.
“I don’t see this being a very peaceful summer … either in New York or in the country, ” he said, referencing concern shared by Adams that shootings will increase this summer as they historically do during the warmer months.
Bratton added, “Maybe voters will start waking up and … put into office people who are willing to tackle the current crime and disorder problem that we are experiencing.”
To make a long story short, you get different answers depending upon who you ask.
Thanks for the long response. That CNN article touched on most of my hypotheses… in that “stress” and “scarcity” or what you characterized as “behavioral” cause violence to increase, though I couched them in biology instead (my science bias I suppose). I think the key issue to consider is what is new, or recently changed that might account for the change in violence rates.
Looking at your data, the murder rate started increasing in 2014 or 2015 stabilized for a year or three and then shot up in 2020. So that indicates there might have been one factor increasing the murder rate last decade and then something in 2020. I have heard the hypothesis that it was Black Lives Matter and either police being demoralized or police being pulled back that account for that increase, as Bratton advocates (I don’t generally give political actors, as I believe him to be, much credence). I have also heard the problem was that COVID closed schools, libraries, community centers etc which increased the opportunity for people to have conflict and get into trouble. I’d certainly believe both of these factors together could be factors in the 2020 spike.
On a personal note, I had an odd childhood. I lived in the least expensive housing available in a good school system. My elementary school was rough, there was a lot of bullying and an underlying rage. Many of the kids were abused or neglected, there were only half a dozen members in the school’s PTA. In my sixth grade class there were only 4 kids who got As and Bs all year (me and 3 immigrants who moved to better neighborhoods as soon as they could afford to). By the time I graduated, most of my elementary classmates had dropped out or were graduating from the “alternative” high school. Many of the boys had been expelled for gang activity. I have a picture from that of how crime in these neighborhoods works, and alas I feel it’s more complex than just policing or household income or more services.
Point is though, to actually solve the problem, it is important to really understand its cause and not just pick your favorite solution as Duncan and Bratton would have us do.
If there aren’t many or adequate records being kept regarding race in law enforcement, how are we able to understand the data? From just a couple of years if The W Post?
In Faustian Bargain Part 2 (http://greenmanhouse.org/wordpress/2022/03/26/faustian-bargain-part-2-compassionate-conservation-is-it-needed-is-it-real/), I looked at the Great Society legislation. The data indicates that despite trillions of dollars spent on these programs the poor in America are worse off. Yet we keep spending money on these programs that make the problems worse. Einstein said the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. We need new innovative approaches.
In Reconstructing History, Part 4 (http://greenmanhouse.org/wordpress/2022/03/17/reconstructing-history-part-4-multiple-punctured-equilibriums/), I used the concepts of path dependency and punctuated equilibrium to examine this issue. Path dependency essentially states that people and organizations will continue to do the same things until an event knocks them out of the "path". These events are called punctured equilibriums. The US went through a series of punctuated equilibriums with the social justice movements and may still experience a few more. These events can significantly change the course a society pursues as well as culture. The last punctuated equilibrium event in this chain was the Virginia elections in 2021. The democrats looked to have Virginia sewn up until parents in Loudoun County stood against Critical Race Theory. The democratic candidate then said parents have no say in their children's education. This turned the governatoral race around. The question is, what happens next?
The Massachusetts experience with charter schools, as well as Success Academy in NYC, demonstrates quite clearly that they produce quality results. There is no doubt that with any system there will be failures but that should not keep us from trying to fix the failed system of urban public education. The beauty of our federal system is that we have 50 states available to employ varieties of fixes, including charters and their regulation. Competition is critical to make the fix work.
You say that "140 unarmed black people were shot dead by law enforcement between 2015 and 2021" and that that's about 20 per year, which you imply is unjust even if not as extreme as activists claim. Michael Brown demonstrated how being "unarmed" is not equivalent to being non-threatening, when he charged a cop much smaller than himself and tried to get his gun. So how many of the 20 per year were killed without justification? You don't say, though you imply that all of them were. Likewise, the idea that whites have half the odds of being shot by a cop as blacks do, without any discussion of the relative amount of violent crime committed by blacks compared to whites, does nothing to show that there is even an increased tendency for cops to shoot blacks, much less some racially-driven inclination. You make a lot of good points, but we need to be clear on that one, because implying that there's even a relatively small problem without providing evidence is itself a problem.
Your points are valid and well taken. I didn't mean to imply that all of the unarmed people shot dead by law enforcement were killed unjustly. I didn't delve into the individual cases because the numbers are so small.
I cannot recommend enough the collection of essays published under Robert
Woodson's editorship. I keep an informal list of books that have changed my views--and I am in my late 70's; my views are well established. I listened to this book on a long trip about a year ago. I will listen to it again, and probably buy the print edition.
The summary: The freed slaves made astounding progress during a period where laws, practices, etc. were (rightfully) are today considered incredibly racist and horrific. But, they gathered together, pulled themselves up in what is probably historically an unprecedented example of a below-lower caste group. Literacy, for example, went from less than ten percent in 1865 to 80 percent or so by the end of the 19th century. This progress continued all through Jim Crow, etc. It didn't flatten out and reverse until about the late 1960's. (The numbers are from recollection, may not be entirely accurate, but are in the ball park). For a while, I was an adjunct professor ITT tech. Now gone and unlamented. Most of the students were minority, had perfectly fine brains. But, they had been massively failed by their elementary/ high school education. While most of them were technically literate, functionally they weren't. Reading comprehension was very substandard, writing ability was essentially zero.
Historically, when there is a subjugated sub population--slaves, free or otherwise--the people that are doing the work become the skilled group. This was happening even under slavery--the enslaved blacks in the South were increasingly the skilled/artisan group. It makes total sense--the blacksmith was black, not the white master. The carpenter, farmer, etc.
There was actually a case or two where a freed slave actually bought the plantation on which he had been enslaved.
I think our societal malaise today on the subject of the black community--and many others--comes from a focus on past and present ills as opposed to past and present successes.
I have no problem with recognizing the abuses, present and past, but I think the focus should be on the successes. In the case of black history--who was that guy that bought the plantation? How did he do it?
As I said, I am old. As a child, we were taught about Booker T. Washington, George Washington Carver, etc. Now, we are tearing down statues of George Washington.
Focus on positive, you get positive. Focus on negative, you get negative. Today, we are laser focused on the bad.
Loury could not help himself: he had to find some way to attack Trump and suggest it was Trump who annoyed black folk, and of course underlying this is the fact that Trump may be responsible for much of what Loury wrote about. Notice Loury did not say a thing about the malignant effects of a prejudiced and an angry media and press, which in many cases fomented the violence that we saw across America. Nor did he get into the fact that Barack Obama and his communist minions have had much to do with the destruction of our country through the racial “identity”issues and Obamas constant complaints of racism. Obama was a divider and Biden has carried out the mission. That’s the truth. Loury is naïve to say the least.
Loury could not help himself: he had to find some way to attack Trump and suggest it was Trump who annoyed black folk, and of course underlying this is the fact that Trump may be responsible for much of what Loury wrote about. Notice Loury did not say a thing about the malignant effects of a prejudiced and an angry media and press, which in many cases fomented the violence that we saw across America. Nor did he get into the fact that Barack Obama and his communist minions have had much to do with the destruction of our country through the racial “identity”issues and Obamas constant complaints of racism. Obama was a divider and Biden has carried out the mission. That’s the truth. Loury is naïve to say the least.
Loury could not help himself: he had to find some way to attack Trump and suggest it was Trump who annoyed black folk, and of course underlying this is the fact that Trump may be responsible for much of what Loury wrote about. Notice Loury did not say a thing about the malignant effects of a prejudiced and an angry media and press, which in many cases fomented the violence that we saw across America. Nor did he get into the fact that Barack Obama and his communist minions have had much to do with the destruction of our country through the racial “identity”issues and Obamas constant complaints of racism. Obama was a divider and Biden has carried out the mission. That’s the truth. Loury is naïve to say the least.
Based on the data provided, white males are 10x more likely to be shot by police than black women. I remember reading about the Obama’s having the “talk” with their daughters. Why did they do that?
Anecdotally, I was given the "talk" when I was a kid. Me, the white son of a college professor who grew up in a small college town. But my father grew up in a rough town and time, Stockton in the '50s, had multiple interactions with police, spent the night in the pokey a few times, and so on. He knew rough cops that didn't like getting mouthed off to, having the authority questioned.
Which brings me to a point about police shooting, black or white. I would bet my last dollar on the fact that almost all of them, no matter the race, have one thing in common; they are all from poor/lower class backgrounds. And one thing that group shares, as well explained by Thomas Sowell is the willful display of... I am not too sure what to call it other than defiance of authority. And nothing is going to escalate an encounter with the police faster than that. As a corollary to that, the police need to learn to talk to young males coming from this background better, but we focus on race instead. But when you misdiagnose an illness, you will never cure it.
The discrepancy between racial groups is a second order affect, mainly from fewer blacks climbing the social ladder due to various reasons: industrial job loss, narrowing educational prospects, cultural demands to not "act while" and so on. As a corollary to that, the police need to learn to talk to young males coming from this background better, but we focus on race instead. But when you misdiagnose an illness, you will never cure it.
I was kind of surprised by the numbers, too. Even the fact that white men are 1 in 2000 to be killed by a policeman, compared to 1 in 1000 for Black men. Is that *THAT* much difference? 1 in 1000 requires The Talk, but 1 in 2000 is privileged? (And that's not taking into account any kind of stats on police interactions, etc.)
Glenn and John were discussing in their most recent Q&A some signs, perhaps, that Woke is ending. It seems to me BLM and MeToo are fast losing credibility, and the backlash to Lia Thomas is already causing the NCAA to reconsider its rules. It would be nice if the era of oppression olympics is ending.
Well written. This kind of data driven breakdown really works for me. I do have one critique. If you are interested in reaching someone who is skeptical, you should try to anticipate and acknowledge their feelings whenever you can. Not saying to pander, but where there is common ground, make sure they notice it.
"Things took a terrible turn for the worse after George Floyd died"
It may seem small, but "when George Floyd was killed" would go a long way.
"when George Floyd was murdered" would be consistent with the conviction and go even further.
Thanks Glen, for this thoughtful article. But it sorely misses some things. We’ve just had 10 people murdered because they are black by a self proclaimed white supremacist. We have now a Republican party (not the one I joined 30 years ago) that now boldly perpetuates racist tropes and has given a comfortable home to white supremacist and their grievances. And happily divides us. Republics-white- is good. Democrat- blk- is bad/dangerous to country. Our own FBI has for a number of years now warned of the growing numbers of avowed white supremacist within police forces across the country. Do you not think that these need addressing in the most strenuous and swift manner? Our politicians on the right along with their mouth pieces at Fox News should seriously be held accountable. They are fomenting hate. It seems You’re letting them off the hook here. Platforms online are radicalizing young white men, turning them into hate-filled murdering terrorists. Those platforms need to be held accountable. We’d do so if there were Muslims being radicalized, right? The willingness to harm or kill blk bodies didn’t begin with Travvon but many many years before that.. we all know this. There’s a deeper, nasty history there and it’s not been handled well. We’ve a very serious problem here. I find it quite interesting to talk about the “low” number of unarmed blk men shot and killed by officers. Both Dylan Roof and the heavily armed Payton Gendron after slaughtering numerous innocents were taken into custody.
Thanks for your comment. What happened in Buffalo was tragic, but we should be careful about drawing broad conclusions from one incident. A report from the ADL says that "extremists" killed 29 people in 2021 and 23 people in 2020. Here's an extended excerpt from their report:
https://www.adl.org/murder-and-extremism-2021#executive-summary:
Executive Summary
Every year people with ties to a variety of extreme movements and causes kill people in the United States; the ADL Center on Extremism tracks these murders. Extremists regularly commit murders in the service of their ideology, in the service of a group or gang they may belong to, or while engaging in traditional, non-ideological criminal activities.
In 2021, domestic extremists killed at least 29 people in the United States, in 19 separate incidents. This represents a modest increase from the 23 extremist-related murders documented in 2020 but is far lower than the number of murders committed in any of the five years prior (which ranged from 45 to 78).
The 2021 murder totals were low primarily because no high-casualty extremist-related shooting spree occurred this past year. Such sprees are the main contributor to high murder totals.
Most of the murders (26 of 29) were committed by right-wing extremists, which is usually the case. However, two killings were committed by Black nationalists and one by an Islamist extremist—the latter being the first such killing since 2018.
Most of the 2021 murders were committed by people associated with longstanding extremist movements, such as white supremacy and the sovereign citizen movement. However, 2021 continued the trend of recent years of seeing some murders from newer types of extremism, including QAnon adherents, people associated with the toxic masculinity subculture of the “manosphere” and anti-vaccination extremists.
White supremacists killed more people in 2021 than any other type of extremist, though not an outright majority, as is often the case. An in-depth look at white supremacist killings over the past 10 years demonstrates the dangers posed by alt right white supremacists and white supremacist prison gangs.
We also have to put the Buffalo tragedy in the context of what NPR says have been 198 mass shootings so far this year:
https://www.npr.org/2022/05/15/1099008586/mass-shootings-us-2022-tally-number
Here's an excerpt:
It is also the 198th mass shooting in 2022. With just over 19 weeks into the year, this averages out to about 10 such attacks a week.
The tally comes from the Gun Violence Archive, an independent data collection organization. The group defines a mass shooting as an incident in which four or more people are shot or killed, excluding the shooter. The full list of mass shootings in 2022 can be found here.
Prior to the Buffalo attack, the largest-scale mass shooting this year was at a car show in Dumas, Ark., on March 19. That attack killed one person and injured 27.
The link didn't carry through with the cut and paste, but here's a link for the Gun Violence Archive site referenced above:
https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/mass-shooting
Last, but not least, we have to put the numbers above in the context of what the CDC says were 24,576 homicides in 2020:
https://wisqars.cdc.gov/fatal-leading
None of this is to minimize your concerns, but it's way too easy to say this group or that group is responsible for violence. The reality is that we've experienced a big increase in homicides in recent years that experts are struggling to explain. Extremists account for a small percentage of the total. .
Clifton, that was an interesting read. However, what if, contrary to your premise, economics are not the primary driver of the increase in the crime rate? Off the top of my head, I have some alternate ideas…
1) guns. I know that guns don’t kill people, people kill people and all that. However, it is clearly the case that impulsively killing a person or people is a lot easier with a gun lying around and gun ownership seems to be increasing. I wonder if the rest of the western world is also experiencing an increase in crime, or if that is an American phenomenon. Solutions, if that is the case, are easy but probably will never happen politically.
2) there is a biological phenomenon where animals (and humans are animals) in groups become more aggressive when resources become scarce. Perhaps COVID with all of the disruptions to our daily lives has triggered a sense of scarcity, particularly in cities where people are most densely packed. If this is the cause, it should work itself out in time as life gets back to normal (assuming it ever does).
3) another biology hypothesis… apparently even hearing someone be rude to another person can activate our fight or flight instincts, increasing aggression. Not only has civility taken a serious down turn (blame social media if you like) but everywhere I go everyone seems to feel under attack. From conservatives who fear some scheme of being systematically replaced to minority groups touting increases in hate crimes on the liberal side of things. I hear something is “under attack” everywhere I turn. Do you remember the story of the off-duty police officer shooting a young man with, I think it was autism, because he bumped into him in line at Costco? People just aren’t built to be under constant stress, we act out. This would be difficult to change, but ii think doable with maybe more access to mental healthcare and paid leave…? And most importantly turning down the temperature on basically everything.
4) a counter-intuitive economic hypothesis. We know that how wealthy we feel is relative to those around us less than on an objective basis. What if the economic growth is unevenly felt and is actually increasing the feelings of not having enough among those that are not doing better? I guess that would fall under the large heading of inequality, but it’s a pretty specific kind. It would seem possible that your next door neighbor buying a new x box when you can’t pay the rent would be more upsetting than Elon Musk’s billions. I’m not sure how that hypothesis would be tested and worse if that were a cause, what a solution would be.
Thanks for your comment. I don't think we understand gun violence well enough to say with certainty what caused the homicide spike. Here's an excerpt from a CDC report that was published last week:
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7119e1.htm?s_cid=mm7119e1_w
Firearm homicides and suicides represent persistent and significant U.S. public health concerns. In 2020, 79% of all homicides and 53% of all suicides involved firearms (somewhat
higher than during the preceding 5 years, when 73%–75% of all homicides and 50%–51% of all suicides involved firearms each year) (1). Although all population groups experience
firearm homicides and suicides, some are disproportionately affected. Firearm homicide rates are consistently highest among males, adolescents and young adults, and non-Hispanic Black
or African American (Black) and non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaska Native (AI/AN) persons; firearm suicide rates are highest among males, older adults, and non-Hispanic White
(White) and AI/AN persons (1). Economic conditions in communities contribute to risk for
violence, including firearm-related violence, and related racial and ethnic inequities (2). For example, multiple indicators (e.g., income inequality, unemployment, and housing and
economic instability) are associated with risk for homicide and suicide (3–5). Youth firearm homicide and suicide rates have been associated with poverty at the county level (6), and
the percentage of youths living in conditions of household poverty is higher among racial and ethnic minority populations (6). The economic and social challenges associated with the
COVID-19 pandemic could have exacerbated such risks (2,7).
People like Jens Ludwig at the University of Chicago have a slightly different take. Here's a link to an essay he wrote for CNN that was published last month:
https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/23/opinions/surprising-solution-to-gun-violence-ludwig/index.html
He makes a nuanced argument that I can't summarize in a few sentences. The gist of it is that gun violence is a "behavioral" issue that can be addressed if society is willing to commit enough resources. He thinks it would cost $1 billion per year to reduce the violence in Chicago by 50% according to this Chicago Sun-Times article:
https://chicago.suntimes.com/crime/2022/4/21/23026049/what-cost-cut-crime-non-violence-police-cpd-alternative-cred
Arne Duncan, former Secretary of Education, is now the CEO of a group called CRED. They're also quoted in the article above and say it would cost just over $400 million per year for five years to get violence "under control" in Chicago.
I've seen others who support your point about the big spike in legal gun purchases that occurred in recent years.
People like former NYC Police Commissioner Bill Bratton have a different point of view. They place much of the blame at the feet of "progressive" prosecutors and politicians:
https://nypost.com/2022/04/10/ex-nypd-commissioner-bill-bratton-laments-soaring-crime/
Here's an excerpt:
Bratton — who returned to helm the NYPD between 2014 and 2016 and also led the Los Angeles and Boston police departments — blamed the increase in crime on left-wing prosecutors and politicians.
“The cause of our current crime problem … is political,” he said. “The idea that so many of our legislators, governors, mayors around the country and in Washington are much more focused on the rights of defendants and less focused on the rights of the victims. We have seen this horrific breakdown in the criminal justice system.
“At one time prosecutors worked closely with police,” he added. “Now, they spend more time ignoring them.”
Bratton has praised Mayor Eric Adams’ public safety approach and wished the retired NYPD captain “luck” with the criminal justice system “mess” created by state politicians.
He had a grim forecast for both the Big Apple and the US.
“Things … will get worse. That is my prediction,” Bratton said.
“I don’t see this being a very peaceful summer … either in New York or in the country, ” he said, referencing concern shared by Adams that shootings will increase this summer as they historically do during the warmer months.
Bratton added, “Maybe voters will start waking up and … put into office people who are willing to tackle the current crime and disorder problem that we are experiencing.”
To make a long story short, you get different answers depending upon who you ask.
Thanks for the long response. That CNN article touched on most of my hypotheses… in that “stress” and “scarcity” or what you characterized as “behavioral” cause violence to increase, though I couched them in biology instead (my science bias I suppose). I think the key issue to consider is what is new, or recently changed that might account for the change in violence rates.
Looking at your data, the murder rate started increasing in 2014 or 2015 stabilized for a year or three and then shot up in 2020. So that indicates there might have been one factor increasing the murder rate last decade and then something in 2020. I have heard the hypothesis that it was Black Lives Matter and either police being demoralized or police being pulled back that account for that increase, as Bratton advocates (I don’t generally give political actors, as I believe him to be, much credence). I have also heard the problem was that COVID closed schools, libraries, community centers etc which increased the opportunity for people to have conflict and get into trouble. I’d certainly believe both of these factors together could be factors in the 2020 spike.
On a personal note, I had an odd childhood. I lived in the least expensive housing available in a good school system. My elementary school was rough, there was a lot of bullying and an underlying rage. Many of the kids were abused or neglected, there were only half a dozen members in the school’s PTA. In my sixth grade class there were only 4 kids who got As and Bs all year (me and 3 immigrants who moved to better neighborhoods as soon as they could afford to). By the time I graduated, most of my elementary classmates had dropped out or were graduating from the “alternative” high school. Many of the boys had been expelled for gang activity. I have a picture from that of how crime in these neighborhoods works, and alas I feel it’s more complex than just policing or household income or more services.
Point is though, to actually solve the problem, it is important to really understand its cause and not just pick your favorite solution as Duncan and Bratton would have us do.
If there aren’t many or adequate records being kept regarding race in law enforcement, how are we able to understand the data? From just a couple of years if The W Post?
In Faustian Bargain Part 2 (http://greenmanhouse.org/wordpress/2022/03/26/faustian-bargain-part-2-compassionate-conservation-is-it-needed-is-it-real/), I looked at the Great Society legislation. The data indicates that despite trillions of dollars spent on these programs the poor in America are worse off. Yet we keep spending money on these programs that make the problems worse. Einstein said the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. We need new innovative approaches.
I'm a big fan of Mr. Roscoe's writing when you post his letters so thank you for posting this long analysis.
Thanks for the kind words
In Reconstructing History, Part 4 (http://greenmanhouse.org/wordpress/2022/03/17/reconstructing-history-part-4-multiple-punctured-equilibriums/), I used the concepts of path dependency and punctuated equilibrium to examine this issue. Path dependency essentially states that people and organizations will continue to do the same things until an event knocks them out of the "path". These events are called punctured equilibriums. The US went through a series of punctuated equilibriums with the social justice movements and may still experience a few more. These events can significantly change the course a society pursues as well as culture. The last punctuated equilibrium event in this chain was the Virginia elections in 2021. The democrats looked to have Virginia sewn up until parents in Loudoun County stood against Critical Race Theory. The democratic candidate then said parents have no say in their children's education. This turned the governatoral race around. The question is, what happens next?
The Massachusetts experience with charter schools, as well as Success Academy in NYC, demonstrates quite clearly that they produce quality results. There is no doubt that with any system there will be failures but that should not keep us from trying to fix the failed system of urban public education. The beauty of our federal system is that we have 50 states available to employ varieties of fixes, including charters and their regulation. Competition is critical to make the fix work.
You say that "140 unarmed black people were shot dead by law enforcement between 2015 and 2021" and that that's about 20 per year, which you imply is unjust even if not as extreme as activists claim. Michael Brown demonstrated how being "unarmed" is not equivalent to being non-threatening, when he charged a cop much smaller than himself and tried to get his gun. So how many of the 20 per year were killed without justification? You don't say, though you imply that all of them were. Likewise, the idea that whites have half the odds of being shot by a cop as blacks do, without any discussion of the relative amount of violent crime committed by blacks compared to whites, does nothing to show that there is even an increased tendency for cops to shoot blacks, much less some racially-driven inclination. You make a lot of good points, but we need to be clear on that one, because implying that there's even a relatively small problem without providing evidence is itself a problem.
Your points are valid and well taken. I didn't mean to imply that all of the unarmed people shot dead by law enforcement were killed unjustly. I didn't delve into the individual cases because the numbers are so small.
I cannot recommend enough the collection of essays published under Robert
Woodson's editorship. I keep an informal list of books that have changed my views--and I am in my late 70's; my views are well established. I listened to this book on a long trip about a year ago. I will listen to it again, and probably buy the print edition.
The summary: The freed slaves made astounding progress during a period where laws, practices, etc. were (rightfully) are today considered incredibly racist and horrific. But, they gathered together, pulled themselves up in what is probably historically an unprecedented example of a below-lower caste group. Literacy, for example, went from less than ten percent in 1865 to 80 percent or so by the end of the 19th century. This progress continued all through Jim Crow, etc. It didn't flatten out and reverse until about the late 1960's. (The numbers are from recollection, may not be entirely accurate, but are in the ball park). For a while, I was an adjunct professor ITT tech. Now gone and unlamented. Most of the students were minority, had perfectly fine brains. But, they had been massively failed by their elementary/ high school education. While most of them were technically literate, functionally they weren't. Reading comprehension was very substandard, writing ability was essentially zero.
Historically, when there is a subjugated sub population--slaves, free or otherwise--the people that are doing the work become the skilled group. This was happening even under slavery--the enslaved blacks in the South were increasingly the skilled/artisan group. It makes total sense--the blacksmith was black, not the white master. The carpenter, farmer, etc.
There was actually a case or two where a freed slave actually bought the plantation on which he had been enslaved.
I think our societal malaise today on the subject of the black community--and many others--comes from a focus on past and present ills as opposed to past and present successes.
I have no problem with recognizing the abuses, present and past, but I think the focus should be on the successes. In the case of black history--who was that guy that bought the plantation? How did he do it?
As I said, I am old. As a child, we were taught about Booker T. Washington, George Washington Carver, etc. Now, we are tearing down statues of George Washington.
Focus on positive, you get positive. Focus on negative, you get negative. Today, we are laser focused on the bad.
Woodson's book is Red, White and Black.
Thank you Glenn.
Want peace in the streets? End the Drug War now! It is Unconstitutional and Tyrannical.
Loury could not help himself: he had to find some way to attack Trump and suggest it was Trump who annoyed black folk, and of course underlying this is the fact that Trump may be responsible for much of what Loury wrote about. Notice Loury did not say a thing about the malignant effects of a prejudiced and an angry media and press, which in many cases fomented the violence that we saw across America. Nor did he get into the fact that Barack Obama and his communist minions have had much to do with the destruction of our country through the racial “identity”issues and Obamas constant complaints of racism. Obama was a divider and Biden has carried out the mission. That’s the truth. Loury is naïve to say the least.
Loury could not help himself: he had to find some way to attack Trump and suggest it was Trump who annoyed black folk, and of course underlying this is the fact that Trump may be responsible for much of what Loury wrote about. Notice Loury did not say a thing about the malignant effects of a prejudiced and an angry media and press, which in many cases fomented the violence that we saw across America. Nor did he get into the fact that Barack Obama and his communist minions have had much to do with the destruction of our country through the racial “identity”issues and Obamas constant complaints of racism. Obama was a divider and Biden has carried out the mission. That’s the truth. Loury is naïve to say the least.
Trump is a narcissist. I would be happy to go back to 2010 Obama politics.
Of course you would.
Loury could not help himself: he had to find some way to attack Trump and suggest it was Trump who annoyed black folk, and of course underlying this is the fact that Trump may be responsible for much of what Loury wrote about. Notice Loury did not say a thing about the malignant effects of a prejudiced and an angry media and press, which in many cases fomented the violence that we saw across America. Nor did he get into the fact that Barack Obama and his communist minions have had much to do with the destruction of our country through the racial “identity”issues and Obamas constant complaints of racism. Obama was a divider and Biden has carried out the mission. That’s the truth. Loury is naïve to say the least.
Based on the data provided, white males are 10x more likely to be shot by police than black women. I remember reading about the Obama’s having the “talk” with their daughters. Why did they do that?
Anecdotally, I was given the "talk" when I was a kid. Me, the white son of a college professor who grew up in a small college town. But my father grew up in a rough town and time, Stockton in the '50s, had multiple interactions with police, spent the night in the pokey a few times, and so on. He knew rough cops that didn't like getting mouthed off to, having the authority questioned.
Which brings me to a point about police shooting, black or white. I would bet my last dollar on the fact that almost all of them, no matter the race, have one thing in common; they are all from poor/lower class backgrounds. And one thing that group shares, as well explained by Thomas Sowell is the willful display of... I am not too sure what to call it other than defiance of authority. And nothing is going to escalate an encounter with the police faster than that. As a corollary to that, the police need to learn to talk to young males coming from this background better, but we focus on race instead. But when you misdiagnose an illness, you will never cure it.
The discrepancy between racial groups is a second order affect, mainly from fewer blacks climbing the social ladder due to various reasons: industrial job loss, narrowing educational prospects, cultural demands to not "act while" and so on. As a corollary to that, the police need to learn to talk to young males coming from this background better, but we focus on race instead. But when you misdiagnose an illness, you will never cure it.
I was kind of surprised by the numbers, too. Even the fact that white men are 1 in 2000 to be killed by a policeman, compared to 1 in 1000 for Black men. Is that *THAT* much difference? 1 in 1000 requires The Talk, but 1 in 2000 is privileged? (And that's not taking into account any kind of stats on police interactions, etc.)
Glenn and John were discussing in their most recent Q&A some signs, perhaps, that Woke is ending. It seems to me BLM and MeToo are fast losing credibility, and the backlash to Lia Thomas is already causing the NCAA to reconsider its rules. It would be nice if the era of oppression olympics is ending.