3 ms·

Thanks for elaborating, my initial thoughts: 1) You should focus on Atlanta or Brookhaven where this happened. Not New York City. Is Brookhaven having the same

Thanks for elaborating, my initial thoughts: 1) You should focus on Atlanta or Brookhaven where this happened. Not New York City. Is Brookhaven having the same lack of enforcement, or did someone just randomly shoot a gun because thats something anybody can do? 2) The Broken Windows theory has been debunked over and over again. I'm surprised you walked right into that one but I can see how relying on that antiquated idea of policing gets you or similar discussions called racist as aspects and implementation of that policy has been criticized as such too. The vestigial aspects of the Broken Windows policy was randomly stopping and frisking people overwhelmingly of specific races and that was called unconstitutional specifically for its racial component and lack of efficacy in fulfilling a potentially overriding potentially valid government interest, it was not appealed so it is a done deal. Basically they rarely found guns, but did find people with existing warrants, or weed, or on parole, or just wound up harassing the same people over and over again until an arrestable outcome was created. All while an even proportion of the population across races said they use the same drugs and simply weren't being stopped. The reduction in crime during that time period has been attributed to the waning of the crack epidemic, reduction in lead poisoning, and even simply mean reversion. I would agree that the further attempts at tweaking society - such as simply not enforcing laws - disrupts a balance when there is no replacement proposed to restore balance, but "broken windows" is just a "broken family" policy.

xyzzyz 5y ago
> 1) You should focus on Atlanta or Brookhaven where this happened. Not New York City. Is Brookhaven having the same lack of enforcement, (...) Yes, Atlanta very much joined the "defund the police" bandwagon, with the Mayor calling for it, and saying that they are already "ahead of the curve on"[1]. When the totally predictable crime surge happened as a result, the city (unlike, sadly, many activists, understood the idea of cause and effect, and reversed the policy[2]. As it turns out, people actually affected by crime do want more police presence, and more law enforcement. > or did someone just randomly shoot a gun because thats something anybody can do? People "randomly shooting a gun" is not the reason people get shot in cities. It happens because some people are purposefully, not randomly, shooting at other people, and in the process, those people, and also bystanders, get shot. These people consciously decide to commit heinous crime, and comments like above reduce their agency to minimize their responsibility. > The Broken Windows theory has been debunked over and over again. And you can say it again here, but it will not make it any more true. > The reduction in crime during that time period has been attributed to the waning of the crack epidemic, reduction in lead poisoning, and even simply mean reversion. At exactly the same time, the country as a whole became much more serious about fighting crime, culminating in the Biden Crime Law of 1994. Why exactly did the crack epidemic wane, pray tell? I'm sure it didn't have anything to do with removal and jailing of drug dealers and users, so what did it? And how is "mean reversion" even supposed to work as explanatory mechanism? Without fancy terminology, it equates to saying "it went down because things often go down after being up", which is completely useless as an explanation. [1] - https://www.11alive.com/article/news/local/protests/atlanta-mayor-bottoms-on-defunding-police/85-bd8370a6-2a9b-48c5-a1ca-7d4cd85f37b4 https://www.11alive.com/article/news/local/protests/atlanta-... [2] - https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2021/0706/In-Atlanta-a-glimpse-of-why-defund-the-police-has-faltered https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2021/0706/In-Atlanta-a-glimpse...
- vmception 5y ago
  jailing drug dealers and users because they jumped a turnstile is different than jailing drug dealers and users because they were investigated for that specific substance. the former policy is broken windows theory, which you started with in your other response, the later is a nationwide crime bill that was not an extension of the broken windows theory. It did not go after low level offenses it did other things like expanded capital punishment and reduced higher education for inmates. Also, criticizable things. people mostly look at the effects of both of those policies and say that the long tail effects, due to the structure of our prison system, result in just disrupted families undermining the productivity and security of our society in that way. For example, people of some races don't have father figures so often because the fathers are all imprisoned. When released, the father cannot reintegrate due to ongoing marginalization from the workforce and access to capital, and the child grows up emulating bad influences. People might not have created an adequate way of fixing that, but for now they are just saying the older ways that exacerbate this problem are not good for our society or the people immediately affected. the crime occurring now is alarming, these upticks are from an all time low in violent crime. so its disengenius, to me, to wnat policies as if this was the 80s and 90s again just because "crime is up". I would like to see inspiration for other solutions. but I think we've gotten off topic, I don't really think that any of this prevents a "random discharge of a gun". Even a licensed valid concealed carry holder - or owner - has the capability of doing that, or someone in their home does.
  - xyzzyz 5y ago
    > For example, people (…) don't have father figures so often because the fathers are all imprisoned. Maybe they should then stop committing crime. That helps with the hassle of getting imprisoned. They should also stop having children without getting married, as this is much more typical reason of children being raised children without fathers. > the crime occurring now is alarming, these upticks are from an all time low in violent crime. No, it has not been all time low. It has only been low since the crime started surging in the 60s. Crime was lower in early 20th century than it was in 2019. Moreover, rise in homicides in 2020-2021 has not been an “uptick”: it is, in fact, contrary to what you say, back to 80s level. > I don't really think that any of this prevents a "random discharge of a gun". Even a licensed valid concealed carry holder - or owner - has the capability of doing that, or someone in their home does. That’s true, but that’s not relevant, because it is by and large not a cause of our problem. A licensed driver also has a capability of randomly swerving and running over someone walking on the sidewalk. However, this is overwhelmingly not something that happens often. It would be ridiculous to suggest that if we want to reduce vehicular deaths, we should focus on drivers randomly swerving onto sidewalk. Please stop distracting people by bringing up low-priority problems (people randomly discharging firearms), and start focusing on actual problems (people deliberately shooting other people). What you keep doing here is deny people agency. You make it as if being imprisoned, or having firearm they hold discharge, is something that just “randomly” happens to people. It does not. By and large, it is a result of people making wrong decision. The society has a twofold duty: first, it needs to make everyone understand that some decisions are wrong for them and for everyone else, and will lead to bad consequences. Second is that it needs to protect the rest of the society from the consequences of bad actions of the criminals. We don’t jail people just for the fun of it, we do it to both teach them a lesson, and remove their ability to commit crime, at least temporarily. Given that the alternative strategies of dealing with crime has been overwhelmingly ineffective (and last two years have proved it beyond all doubt), let’s go back to what works.

xyzzyz 5y ago

> 1) You should focus on Atlanta or Brookhaven where this happened. Not New York City. Is Brookhaven having the same lack of enforcement, (...) Yes, Atlanta very much joined the "defund the police" bandwagon, with the Mayor calling for it, and saying that they are already "ahead of the curve on"[1]. When the totally predictable crime surge happened as a result, the city (unlike, sadly, many activists, understood the idea of cause and effect, and reversed the policy[2]. As it turns out, people actually affected by crime do want more police presence, and more law enforcement. > or did someone just randomly shoot a gun because thats something anybody can do? People "randomly shooting a gun" is not the reason people get shot in cities. It happens because some people are purposefully, not randomly, shooting at other people, and in the process, those people, and also bystanders, get shot. These people consciously decide to commit heinous crime, and comments like above reduce their agency to minimize their responsibility. > The Broken Windows theory has been debunked over and over again. And you can say it again here, but it will not make it any more true. > The reduction in crime during that time period has been attributed to the waning of the crack epidemic, reduction in lead poisoning, and even simply mean reversion. At exactly the same time, the country as a whole became much more serious about fighting crime, culminating in the Biden Crime Law of 1994. Why exactly did the crack epidemic wane, pray tell? I'm sure it didn't have anything to do with removal and jailing of drug dealers and users, so what did it? And how is "mean reversion" even supposed to work as explanatory mechanism? Without fancy terminology, it equates to saying "it went down because things often go down after being up", which is completely useless as an explanation. [1] - https://www.11alive.com/article/news/local/protests/atlanta-mayor-bottoms-on-defunding-police/85-bd8370a6-2a9b-48c5-a1ca-7d4cd85f37b4 https://www.11alive.com/article/news/local/protests/atlanta-... [2] - https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2021/0706/In-Atlanta-a-glimpse-of-why-defund-the-police-has-faltered https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2021/0706/In-Atlanta-a-glimpse...

vmception 5y ago
jailing drug dealers and users because they jumped a turnstile is different than jailing drug dealers and users because they were investigated for that specific substance. the former policy is broken windows theory, which you started with in your other response, the later is a nationwide crime bill that was not an extension of the broken windows theory. It did not go after low level offenses it did other things like expanded capital punishment and reduced higher education for inmates. Also, criticizable things. people mostly look at the effects of both of those policies and say that the long tail effects, due to the structure of our prison system, result in just disrupted families undermining the productivity and security of our society in that way. For example, people of some races don't have father figures so often because the fathers are all imprisoned. When released, the father cannot reintegrate due to ongoing marginalization from the workforce and access to capital, and the child grows up emulating bad influences. People might not have created an adequate way of fixing that, but for now they are just saying the older ways that exacerbate this problem are not good for our society or the people immediately affected. the crime occurring now is alarming, these upticks are from an all time low in violent crime. so its disengenius, to me, to wnat policies as if this was the 80s and 90s again just because "crime is up". I would like to see inspiration for other solutions. but I think we've gotten off topic, I don't really think that any of this prevents a "random discharge of a gun". Even a licensed valid concealed carry holder - or owner - has the capability of doing that, or someone in their home does.
- xyzzyz 5y ago
  > For example, people (…) don't have father figures so often because the fathers are all imprisoned. Maybe they should then stop committing crime. That helps with the hassle of getting imprisoned. They should also stop having children without getting married, as this is much more typical reason of children being raised children without fathers. > the crime occurring now is alarming, these upticks are from an all time low in violent crime. No, it has not been all time low. It has only been low since the crime started surging in the 60s. Crime was lower in early 20th century than it was in 2019. Moreover, rise in homicides in 2020-2021 has not been an “uptick”: it is, in fact, contrary to what you say, back to 80s level. > I don't really think that any of this prevents a "random discharge of a gun". Even a licensed valid concealed carry holder - or owner - has the capability of doing that, or someone in their home does. That’s true, but that’s not relevant, because it is by and large not a cause of our problem. A licensed driver also has a capability of randomly swerving and running over someone walking on the sidewalk. However, this is overwhelmingly not something that happens often. It would be ridiculous to suggest that if we want to reduce vehicular deaths, we should focus on drivers randomly swerving onto sidewalk. Please stop distracting people by bringing up low-priority problems (people randomly discharging firearms), and start focusing on actual problems (people deliberately shooting other people). What you keep doing here is deny people agency. You make it as if being imprisoned, or having firearm they hold discharge, is something that just “randomly” happens to people. It does not. By and large, it is a result of people making wrong decision. The society has a twofold duty: first, it needs to make everyone understand that some decisions are wrong for them and for everyone else, and will lead to bad consequences. Second is that it needs to protect the rest of the society from the consequences of bad actions of the criminals. We don’t jail people just for the fun of it, we do it to both teach them a lesson, and remove their ability to commit crime, at least temporarily. Given that the alternative strategies of dealing with crime has been overwhelmingly ineffective (and last two years have proved it beyond all doubt), let’s go back to what works.