"Doug Miller" wrote in message

Norminn claimed that the elimination of leaded gasoline was responsible
for the reducition in
crime in NYC under Giuliani; the point of the question was to show the
total idiocy of that claim,
in light of the crime rates in other major cities.

Norminn claimed no such thing. She said, precisely:

Interesting article in (Atlantic?) about the relation of high lead
levels in environ. and the crime levels that follow in about 20 years.
Not proof, and no proof is claimed, and the author has studied quite a
few regions, including NYC, where the statistics for both problems are
accurate. Mayor G. got a lot of credit for reducing crime, but it might
have been due more to the reduction of lead in gasoline.

She *suggested* lead *might* be associated with crime, a position
entertained by a number of criminologists and social science researchers.
However, she was VERY clear in pointing out "Not proof and no proof is
claimed." She even used words like "might have been" and suggested that
there were other sources for lead in the environment besides gasoline.

She's the victim of a pretty common Usenet tactic: Stuff words into
someone's mouth and then insult them for saying things they never actually
said.

--
Bobby G.

On 1/5/2013 5:21 AM, Robert Green wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message

Norminn claimed that the elimination of leaded gasoline was responsible
for the reducition in
crime in NYC under Giuliani; the point of the question was to show the
total idiocy of that claim,
in light of the crime rates in other major cities.

Norminn claimed no such thing. She said, precisely:

Interesting article in (Atlantic?) about the relation of high lead
levels in environ. and the crime levels that follow in about 20 years.
Not proof, and no proof is claimed, and the author has studied quite a
few regions, including NYC, where the statistics for both problems are
accurate. Mayor G. got a lot of credit for reducing crime, but it might
have been due more to the reduction of lead in gasoline.

She *suggested* lead *might* be associated with crime, a position
entertained by a number of criminologists and social science researchers.
However, she was VERY clear in pointing out "Not proof and no proof is
claimed." She even used words like "might have been" and suggested that
there were other sources for lead in the environment besides gasoline.

She's the victim of a pretty common Usenet tactic: Stuff words into
someone's mouth and then insult them for saying things they never actually
said.

--
Bobby G.



Thank you, enlightened one ;o)

On Jan 5, 5:21*am, "Robert Green" wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
Norminn claimed that the elimination of leaded gasoline was responsible

for the reducition in crime in NYC under Giuliani; the point of the question was to show the

total idiocy of that claim,

in light of the crime rates in other major cities.

Norminn claimed no such thing. *She said, precisely:

Interesting article in (Atlantic?) about the relation of high lead
levels in environ. and the crime levels that follow in about 20 years.
Not proof, and no proof is claimed, and the author has studied quite a
few regions, including NYC, where the statistics for both problems are
accurate. *Mayor G. got a lot of credit for reducing crime, but it might
have been due more to the reduction of lead in gasoline.

She *suggested* lead *might* be associated with crime, a position
entertained by a number of criminologists and social science researchers.
However, she was VERY clear in pointing out "Not proof and no proof is
claimed." *She even used words like "might have been" and suggested that
there were other sources for lead in the environment besides gasoline.

She's the victim of a pretty common Usenet tactic: *Stuff words into
someone's mouth and then insult them for saying things they never actually
said.

--
Bobby G.

But here's the problem. The first thing one thinks of when they
hear this alleged connection is very simple. How do you explain
the low crime rate of NYC and the high crime rate of Chicago?
Leaded gasoline was eliminated in the whole country. Now,
one would think that anyone that claims to have read the article
and is putting forth this theory for the rest of us to consider
could answer that simple question.
But that simple question has been asked by at least 3 people
here for days now, with nothing but crickets......


So, sorry, nobobdy is a victim here of anything, other than
critical thinking by some of us who don't just buy some
crap story, hook line and sinker.

On Jan 5, 6:35*am, Norminn wrote:
On 1/5/2013 5:21 AM, Robert Green wrote:





"Doug Miller" wrote in message

Norminn claimed that the elimination of leaded gasoline was responsible
for the reducition in
crime in NYC under Giuliani; the point of the question was to show the
total idiocy of that claim,
in light of the crime rates in other major cities.

Norminn claimed no such thing. *She said, precisely:

Interesting article in (Atlantic?) about the relation of high lead
levels in environ. and the crime levels that follow in about 20 years.
Not proof, and no proof is claimed, and the author has studied quite a
few regions, including NYC, where the statistics for both problems are
accurate. *Mayor G. got a lot of credit for reducing crime, but it might
have been due more to the reduction of lead in gasoline.

She *suggested* lead *might* be associated with crime, a position
entertained by a number of criminologists and social science researchers.
However, she was VERY clear in pointing out "Not proof and no proof is
claimed." *She even used words like "might have been" and suggested that
there were other sources for lead in the environment besides gasoline.

She's the victim of a pretty common Usenet tactic: *Stuff words into
someone's mouth and then insult them for saying things they never actually
said.

--
Bobby G.

Thank you, enlightened one ;o)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Have an answer for us yet on how gasoline can be the
cause of crime given NYC and Chicago have exactly
the opposite results? No, like all good libs, you just want
to be a victim.

On 1/5/2013 10:46 AM, wrote:
On Jan 5, 5:21 am, "Robert Green" wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
Norminn claimed that the elimination of leaded gasoline was responsible

for the reducition in crime in NYC under Giuliani; the point of the question was to show the

total idiocy of that claim,

in light of the crime rates in other major cities.

Norminn claimed no such thing. She said, precisely:

Interesting article in (Atlantic?) about the relation of high lead
levels in environ. and the crime levels that follow in about 20 years.
Not proof, and no proof is claimed, and the author has studied quite a
few regions, including NYC, where the statistics for both problems are
accurate. Mayor G. got a lot of credit for reducing crime, but it might
have been due more to the reduction of lead in gasoline.

She *suggested* lead *might* be associated with crime, a position
entertained by a number of criminologists and social science researchers.
However, she was VERY clear in pointing out "Not proof and no proof is
claimed." She even used words like "might have been" and suggested that
there were other sources for lead in the environment besides gasoline.

She's the victim of a pretty common Usenet tactic: Stuff words into
someone's mouth and then insult them for saying things they never actually
said.

--
Bobby G.

But here's the problem. The first thing one thinks of when they
hear this alleged connection is very simple. How do you explain
the low crime rate of NYC and the high crime rate of Chicago?
Leaded gasoline was eliminated in the whole country. Now,
one would think that anyone that claims to have read the article
and is putting forth this theory for the rest of us to consider
could answer that simple question.
But that simple question has been asked by at least 3 people
here for days now, with nothing but crickets......


So, sorry, nobobdy is a victim here of anything, other than
critical thinking by some of us who don't just buy some
crap story, hook line and sinker.

Duh!! Lead is no longer additive to gasoline, but the pollution
remains....as explained in the article you slammed without (obviously)
reading it.

Crap story? Hook, line and sinker? Did you read the article? Here is
a link, in case you are interested...

http://www.motherjones.com/environme...-link-gasoline

On Jan 5, 11:41*am, Norminn wrote:
On 1/5/2013 10:46 AM, wrote:



On Jan 5, 5:21 am, "Robert Green" wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
Norminn claimed that the elimination of leaded gasoline was responsible

for the reducition in crime in NYC under Giuliani; the point of the question was to show the

total idiocy of that claim,

in light of the crime rates in other major cities.

Norminn claimed no such thing. *She said, precisely:

Interesting article in (Atlantic?) about the relation of high lead
levels in environ. and the crime levels that follow in about 20 years.
Not proof, and no proof is claimed, and the author has studied quite a
few regions, including NYC, where the statistics for both problems are
accurate. *Mayor G. got a lot of credit for reducing crime, but it might
have been due more to the reduction of lead in gasoline.

She *suggested* lead *might* be associated with crime, a position
entertained by a number of criminologists and social science researchers.
However, she was VERY clear in pointing out "Not proof and no proof is
claimed." *She even used words like "might have been" and suggested that
there were other sources for lead in the environment besides gasoline.

She's the victim of a pretty common Usenet tactic: *Stuff words into
someone's mouth and then insult them for saying things they never actually
said.

--
Bobby G.

But here's the problem. *The first thing one thinks of when they
hear this alleged connection is very simple. *How do you explain
the low crime rate of NYC and the high crime rate of Chicago?
Leaded gasoline was eliminated in the whole country. * Now,
one would think that anyone that claims to have read the article
and is putting forth this theory for the rest of us to consider
could answer that simple question.
But that simple question has been asked by at least 3 people
here for days now, with nothing but crickets......

So, sorry, nobobdy is a victim here of anything, other than
critical thinking by some of us who don't just buy some
crap story, hook line and sinker.

Duh!! Lead is no longer additive to gasoline, but the pollution
remains....as explained in the article you slammed without (obviously)
reading it.

The pollution only remains in Chicago, but not NYC?
That is what would have to exist for the theory that leaded
gasoline is behind high crime rates. THAT is what at
least 3 of us have pointed out and asked you to explain.
So, still waiting. And sorry if you libs think this is being
attacked. The rest of us think it's just a legitimate, simple
contradiction that pretty much shoots the whole premise.
The fact that you still won't answer the question suggests
we're right.

On 1/5/2013 11:48 AM, wrote:
On Jan 5, 11:41 am, Norminn wrote:
On 1/5/2013 10:46 AM, wrote:



On Jan 5, 5:21 am, "Robert Green" wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
Norminn claimed that the elimination of leaded gasoline was responsible

for the reducition in crime in NYC under Giuliani; the point of the question was to show the

total idiocy of that claim,

in light of the crime rates in other major cities.

Norminn claimed no such thing. She said, precisely:

Interesting article in (Atlantic?) about the relation of high lead
levels in environ. and the crime levels that follow in about 20 years.
Not proof, and no proof is claimed, and the author has studied quite a
few regions, including NYC, where the statistics for both problems are
accurate. Mayor G. got a lot of credit for reducing crime, but it might
have been due more to the reduction of lead in gasoline.

She *suggested* lead *might* be associated with crime, a position
entertained by a number of criminologists and social science researchers.
However, she was VERY clear in pointing out "Not proof and no proof is
claimed." She even used words like "might have been" and suggested that
there were other sources for lead in the environment besides gasoline.

She's the victim of a pretty common Usenet tactic: Stuff words into
someone's mouth and then insult them for saying things they never actually
said.

--
Bobby G.

But here's the problem. The first thing one thinks of when they
hear this alleged connection is very simple. How do you explain
the low crime rate of NYC and the high crime rate of Chicago?
Leaded gasoline was eliminated in the whole country. Now,
one would think that anyone that claims to have read the article
and is putting forth this theory for the rest of us to consider
could answer that simple question.
But that simple question has been asked by at least 3 people
here for days now, with nothing but crickets......

So, sorry, nobobdy is a victim here of anything, other than
critical thinking by some of us who don't just buy some
crap story, hook line and sinker.

Duh!! Lead is no longer additive to gasoline, but the pollution
remains....as explained in the article you slammed without (obviously)
reading it.

The pollution only remains in Chicago, but not NYC?
That is what would have to exist for the theory that leaded
gasoline is behind high crime rates. THAT is what at
least 3 of us have pointed out and asked you to explain.
So, still waiting. And sorry if you libs think this is being
attacked. The rest of us think it's just a legitimate, simple
contradiction that pretty much shoots the whole premise.
The fact that you still won't answer the question suggests
we're right.



The fact that I won't answer is simply because I don't know the answer.
How about if you answer some questions: I found an article about lead
poisoning/crime rates to be interesting; does that prove (to your pea
brain) that I am "liberal" (whatever in hell that means to the
unschooled). How do the violent crime rates of NYC/Chicago compare, by
year, from 1960 to present? To what do you attribute the difference?
Have you lived in either city?

On Jan 5, 12:45*pm, Norminn wrote:
On 1/5/2013 11:48 AM, wrote:



On Jan 5, 11:41 am, Norminn wrote:
On 1/5/2013 10:46 AM, wrote:

On Jan 5, 5:21 am, "Robert Green" wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
Norminn claimed that the elimination of leaded gasoline was responsible

for the reducition in crime in NYC under Giuliani; the point of the question was to show the

total idiocy of that claim,

in light of the crime rates in other major cities.

Norminn claimed no such thing. *She said, precisely:

Interesting article in (Atlantic?) about the relation of high lead
levels in environ. and the crime levels that follow in about 20 years.
Not proof, and no proof is claimed, and the author has studied quite a
few regions, including NYC, where the statistics for both problems are
accurate. *Mayor G. got a lot of credit for reducing crime, but it might
have been due more to the reduction of lead in gasoline.

She *suggested* lead *might* be associated with crime, a position
entertained by a number of criminologists and social science researchers.
However, she was VERY clear in pointing out "Not proof and no proof is
claimed." *She even used words like "might have been" and suggested that
there were other sources for lead in the environment besides gasoline.

She's the victim of a pretty common Usenet tactic: *Stuff words into
someone's mouth and then insult them for saying things they never actually
said.

--
Bobby G.

But here's the problem. *The first thing one thinks of when they
hear this alleged connection is very simple. *How do you explain
the low crime rate of NYC and the high crime rate of Chicago?
Leaded gasoline was eliminated in the whole country. * Now,
one would think that anyone that claims to have read the article
and is putting forth this theory for the rest of us to consider
could answer that simple question.
But that simple question has been asked by at least 3 people
here for days now, with nothing but crickets......

So, sorry, nobobdy is a victim here of anything, other than
critical thinking by some of us who don't just buy some
crap story, hook line and sinker.

Duh!! Lead is no longer additive to gasoline, but the pollution
remains....as explained in the article you slammed without (obviously)
reading it.

The pollution only remains in Chicago, but not NYC?
That is what would have to exist for the theory that leaded
gasoline is behind high crime rates. * THAT is what at
least 3 of us have pointed out and asked you to explain.
So, still waiting. *And sorry if you libs think this is being
attacked. The rest of us think it's just a legitimate, simple
contradiction that pretty much shoots the whole premise.
The fact that you still won't answer the question suggests
we're right.

The fact that I won't answer is simply because I don't know the answer.
* How about if you answer some questions: *I found an article about lead
poisoning/crime rates to be interesting; does that prove (to your pea
brain) that I am "liberal" (whatever in hell that means to the
unschooled).

It proves to me that you apparently have poor critical reading
skills. That's because the very simple comparison of what
is going on in NYC vs Chicago suggests the association of
leaded vs unleaded gas suggested by the article makes
no sense. It's an obvious contradiction that at least 3 of us
here thought of right from the start. I'd have that contradiction
in mind just thinking about the topic. And I'd evaluate whether
the article addresses it.




*How do the violent crime rates of NYC/Chicago compare, by
year, from 1960 to present? *To what do you attribute the difference?
Have you lived in either city?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You say you read the piece, so I would think you'd know the
answers. But for me the fact that Chicago today has a
dreadful crim rate, while NYC has a low crime rate, with both using
unleaded gas, suggests the above isn't the core issue.

wrote in message
...
#
# You say you read the piece, so I would think you'd know the
# answers. But for me the fact that Chicago today has a
# dreadful crim rate, while NYC has a low crime rate, with both using
# unleaded gas, suggests the above isn't the core issue.

Considering that
- the effect of unleaded gas is a cumulative effect
- other factors can play into such long term effect
And finally, since it was a simple correlation, and NO a causative claim..

It appears that once more you just seem to be intent on jerking off to the
beat of your down drummer.

\

On Jan 5, 6:37*pm, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:
wrote in message

...
#
# You say you read the piece, so I would think you'd know the
# answers. * But for me the fact that Chicago today has a
# dreadful crim rate, while NYC has a low crime rate, with both using
# unleaded gas, suggests the above isn't the core issue.

Considering that
- the effect of unleaded gas is a cumulative effect
- other factors can play into such long term effect
And finally, since it was a simple correlation, and NO a causative claim...

It appears that once more you just seem to be intent on jerking off to the
beat of your down drummer.

\

Yes, it was a causative claim:

"Interesting article in (Atlantic?) about the relation of high lead
levels in environ. and the crime levels that follow in about 20
years.
Not proof, and no proof is claimed, and the author has studied quite
a
few regions, including NYC, where the statistics for both problems
are
accurate. Mayor G. got a lot of credit for reducing crime, but it
might
have been due more to the reduction of lead in gasoline. "

At least 3 others here thought the same thing. A claim that makes
no sense, because Chicago has a high crime rate and NYC a low
one. You are aware that both cities switched from leaded to
unleaded gas at about the same time, are you not?

BTW, have you figured out how that Aprilaire humidifier works?
I know any of the 4 of us could install a simple humidifier and
get it working. Maybe that's why you're so ****ed off and get
into so many nasty arguments? You're just mad as hell
because you can't install or get working a humidifier from
the #1 manufacturer. And you're too arrogant and hot headed
to let anyone help you.

On Sat, 5 Jan 2013 16:17:51 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

At least 3 others here thought the same thing. A claim that makes
no sense, because Chicago has a high crime rate and NYC a low
one. You are aware that both cities switched from leaded to
unleaded gas at about the same time, are you not?

Duck hunters changed to steel shot. The birds never die of lead
poisoning. Yep.

On 01-05-2013 10:48, wrote:
Have an answer for us yet on how gasoline can be the
cause of crime given NYC and Chicago have exactly
the opposite results? No, like all good libs, you just want
to be a victim.

Your fellow conservatives hate it when you respond to a post while
appearing not to have read it.

--
Wes Groleau

UPS CURRIER SERVICE IS HERE TO SERVE YOU MORE BETTER YOUR SATISFACTION
IS OUR CONCERN
(So type your cradit card # in our website imediatley!)

On 1/5/2013 9:46 AM, wrote:
On Jan 5, 5:21 am, "Robert Green" wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
Norminn claimed that the elimination of leaded gasoline was responsible

for the reducition in crime in NYC under Giuliani; the point of the question was to show the

total idiocy of that claim,

in light of the crime rates in other major cities.

Norminn claimed no such thing. She said, precisely:

Interesting article in (Atlantic?) about the relation of high lead
levels in environ. and the crime levels that follow in about 20 years.
Not proof, and no proof is claimed, and the author has studied quite a
few regions, including NYC, where the statistics for both problems are
accurate. Mayor G. got a lot of credit for reducing crime, but it might
have been due more to the reduction of lead in gasoline.

She *suggested* lead *might* be associated with crime, a position
entertained by a number of criminologists and social science researchers.
However, she was VERY clear in pointing out "Not proof and no proof is
claimed." She even used words like "might have been" and suggested that
there were other sources for lead in the environment besides gasoline.

She's the victim of a pretty common Usenet tactic: Stuff words into
someone's mouth and then insult them for saying things they never actually
said.

--
Bobby G.

But here's the problem. The first thing one thinks of when they
hear this alleged connection is very simple. How do you explain
the low crime rate of NYC and the high crime rate of Chicago?
Leaded gasoline was eliminated in the whole country. Now,
one would think that anyone that claims to have read the article
and is putting forth this theory for the rest of us to consider
could answer that simple question.
But that simple question has been asked by at least 3 people
here for days now, with nothing but crickets......


So, sorry, nobobdy is a victim here of anything, other than
critical thinking by some of us who don't just buy some
crap story, hook line and sinker.


Back when Giuliani was mayor, didn't he push zero tolerance for crime,
any crime? The police on the beat were stopping and frisking anyone who
looked like they might be up to something and this had many criminals
becoming reluctant to carry weapons on their person. It seems to me that
the practice may taught the police that it is a good way to discourage
criminal activity and something that is still going on despite all the
protests from criminal rights organizations. ^_^

TDD

The Daring Dufas wrote:

-snip-
Back when Giuliani was mayor, didn't he push zero tolerance for crime,
any crime? The police on the beat were stopping and frisking anyone who
looked like they might be up to something and this had many criminals
becoming reluctant to carry weapons on their person. It seems to me that
the practice may taught the police that it is a good way to discourage
criminal activity and something that is still going on despite all the
protests from criminal rights organizations. ^_^


I hope I remember all his points, but the current mayor recently
listed his thoughts on why violent crime in NY City was down.
1. We put cops where the crime is.
2. 'stop and frisk' lets folks know we're serious.
3. The penalty for carrying is 3 [4?] years and prosecutors are
reluctant to bargain on it.
4. There are easier places for criminals to do what they do.
[as someone who lives a couple hours north of the city, I can vouch
for that-- our cops are kept busy by the miscreants who flee the city
for easy pickin's in the small cities around us ]

Jim

In article ,
Jim Elbrecht wrote:

4. There are easier places for criminals to do what they do.
[as someone who lives a couple hours north of the city, I can vouch
for that-- our cops are kept busy by the miscreants who flee the city
for easy pickin's in the small cities around us ]

Jim

That's an interesting response. I wonder if crime really isn't like a
balloon where you press in one side and another billows out. Are we
transferring crime from the big cities (that are more likely to have to
the infrastructure to submit good reports to the FBI databases) to the
smaller towns?
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

On 1/6/2013 7:14 AM, Jim Elbrecht wrote:
The Daring Dufas wrote:

-snip-
Back when Giuliani was mayor, didn't he push zero tolerance for crime,
any crime? The police on the beat were stopping and frisking anyone who
looked like they might be up to something and this had many criminals
becoming reluctant to carry weapons on their person. It seems to me that
the practice may taught the police that it is a good way to discourage
criminal activity and something that is still going on despite all the
protests from criminal rights organizations. ^_^


I hope I remember all his points, but the current mayor recently
listed his thoughts on why violent crime in NY City was down.
1. We put cops where the crime is.
2. 'stop and frisk' lets folks know we're serious.
3. The penalty for carrying is 3 [4?] years and prosecutors are
reluctant to bargain on it.
4. There are easier places for criminals to do what they do.
[as someone who lives a couple hours north of the city, I can vouch
for that-- our cops are kept busy by the miscreants who flee the city
for easy pickin's in the small cities around us ]

Jim


When I looked online for comparisons of the crime rates for NYC and
Chicago, I found numerous articles about suspicion that NYC cooked the
books...downgraded violent crimes to misdemeanors. Didn't read in
depth. If I had to guess, I'd expect that NYC is too expensive and the
lowlifes have moved elsewhere....certain inner city neighborhoods in
Chicago have been slums for generations, with projects built and torn
down.

On 1/6/2013 6:14 AM, Jim Elbrecht wrote:
The Daring Dufas wrote:

-snip-
Back when Giuliani was mayor, didn't he push zero tolerance for crime,
any crime? The police on the beat were stopping and frisking anyone who
looked like they might be up to something and this had many criminals
becoming reluctant to carry weapons on their person. It seems to me that
the practice may taught the police that it is a good way to discourage
criminal activity and something that is still going on despite all the
protests from criminal rights organizations. ^_^


I hope I remember all his points, but the current mayor recently
listed his thoughts on why violent crime in NY City was down.
1. We put cops where the crime is.
2. 'stop and frisk' lets folks know we're serious.
3. The penalty for carrying is 3 [4?] years and prosecutors are
reluctant to bargain on it.
4. There are easier places for criminals to do what they do.
[as someone who lives a couple hours north of the city, I can vouch
for that-- our cops are kept busy by the miscreants who flee the city
for easy pickin's in the small cities around us ]

Jim


I suppose it's natural behavior for predators to migrate to areas safer
for them and having easier access to prey. ^_^

TDD

On 1/6/2013 6:37 AM, Norminn wrote:
On 1/6/2013 7:14 AM, Jim Elbrecht wrote:
The Daring Dufas wrote:

-snip-
Back when Giuliani was mayor, didn't he push zero tolerance for crime,
any crime? The police on the beat were stopping and frisking anyone who
looked like they might be up to something and this had many criminals
becoming reluctant to carry weapons on their person. It seems to me that
the practice may taught the police that it is a good way to discourage
criminal activity and something that is still going on despite all the
protests from criminal rights organizations. ^_^


I hope I remember all his points, but the current mayor recently
listed his thoughts on why violent crime in NY City was down.
1. We put cops where the crime is.
2. 'stop and frisk' lets folks know we're serious.
3. The penalty for carrying is 3 [4?] years and prosecutors are
reluctant to bargain on it.
4. There are easier places for criminals to do what they do.
[as someone who lives a couple hours north of the city, I can vouch
for that-- our cops are kept busy by the miscreants who flee the city
for easy pickin's in the small cities around us ]

Jim


When I looked online for comparisons of the crime rates for NYC and
Chicago, I found numerous articles about suspicion that NYC cooked the
books...downgraded violent crimes to misdemeanors. Didn't read in
depth. If I had to guess, I'd expect that NYC is too expensive and the
lowlifes have moved elsewhere....certain inner city neighborhoods in
Chicago have been slums for generations, with projects built and torn down.

The debacle known as Cabrini–Green is well known and a very good example
of what happens when Commiecrats are in charge. O_o

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabrini%E2%80%93Green

TDD

On 1/6/2013 8:40 AM, The Daring Dufas wrote:
On 1/6/2013 6:37 AM, Norminn wrote:
On 1/6/2013 7:14 AM, Jim Elbrecht wrote:
The Daring Dufas wrote:

-snip-
Back when Giuliani was mayor, didn't he push zero tolerance for crime,
any crime? The police on the beat were stopping and frisking anyone who
looked like they might be up to something and this had many criminals
becoming reluctant to carry weapons on their person. It seems to me
that
the practice may taught the police that it is a good way to discourage
criminal activity and something that is still going on despite all the
protests from criminal rights organizations. ^_^


I hope I remember all his points, but the current mayor recently
listed his thoughts on why violent crime in NY City was down.
1. We put cops where the crime is.
2. 'stop and frisk' lets folks know we're serious.
3. The penalty for carrying is 3 [4?] years and prosecutors are
reluctant to bargain on it.
4. There are easier places for criminals to do what they do.
[as someone who lives a couple hours north of the city, I can vouch
for that-- our cops are kept busy by the miscreants who flee the city
for easy pickin's in the small cities around us ]

Jim


When I looked online for comparisons of the crime rates for NYC and
Chicago, I found numerous articles about suspicion that NYC cooked the
books...downgraded violent crimes to misdemeanors. Didn't read in
depth. If I had to guess, I'd expect that NYC is too expensive and the
lowlifes have moved elsewhere....certain inner city neighborhoods in
Chicago have been slums for generations, with projects built and torn
down.

The debacle known as Cabrini–Green is well known and a very good example
of what happens when Commiecrats are in charge. O_o

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabrini%E2%80%93Green

TDD

It was, at the time, the only acceptable solution for housing non-whites
in Chicago. A couple of retired cops of my acquaintance had CG on their
beat....needed to wear armor answering calls there, as the trigger-happy
locals had fun shooting at cops ) Cops also had creative, extra-legal
methods for discouraging gang-bangers from entering into said cops'
beats. Commicrats? Nope; it was the wasp community that didn't want
dispersal of non-whites. Old jokes about Cadillacs parked in front of
(white-owned) slums weren't that funny...even with a well-paying job,
blacks had no choice of where in Chicago they could live. CG is gone;
neighborhood unchanged. You could go about 4 blocks from slums and be
in gentrified, wealthy neighborhoods in Chicago.

On Jan 5, 10:01*pm, Wes Groleau wrote:
On 01-05-2013 10:48, wrote:

Have an answer for us yet on how gasoline can be the
cause of crime given NYC and Chicago have exactly
the opposite results? * No, like all good libs, you just want
to be a victim.

Your fellow conservatives hate it when you respond to a post while
appearing not to have read it.

I did read it and have no idea what your're talking about.
Did you read the post?

"Jim Elbrecht" wrote in message

stuff snipped

I hope I remember all his points, but the current mayor recently
listed his thoughts on why violent crime in NY City was down.
1. We put cops where the crime is.
2. 'stop and frisk' lets folks know we're serious.
3. The penalty for carrying is 3 [4?] years and prosecutors are
reluctant to bargain on it.
4. There are easier places for criminals to do what they do.
[as someone who lives a couple hours north of the city, I can vouch
for that-- our cops are kept busy by the miscreants who flee the city
for easy pickin's in the small cities around us ]

The majority of the sources I've consulted seem to agree that DNA and video
surveillance evidence have resulted both in an increase in convictions and a
deterrent effect. Southland had a very hard time convincing minimum wage
employees to testify against armed robbers at their 7-11 stores and led the
way in installing CCTV cameras nationwide. It's *very* hard to intimidate a
videotape and keep it from testifying.

DNA evidence has paid off tremendously in matching criminals to past,
unsolved sexual assaults. Many states swab all convicts and then run that
DNA against cold cases with lots of hits.

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2012/fe...nks-unsolved-/

Unfortunately I wouldn't really consider a mayor a criminologist. I would,
however, expect a mayor to tout all the initiatives *he* started as the
major factors in crime reduction. Many politicians were fond of the "broken
window" theory of crime reduction until it was pretty much disproved by
further sociological research:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory

--
Bobby G.

"Norminn" wrote in message news:U_idnYaHmvsu-

I found an article about lead
poisoning/crime rates to be interesting; does that prove (to your pea
brain) that I am "liberal" (whatever in hell that means to the
unschooled).

It just proves that people who should be trying to convince us they are
mature enough to be trusted carrying guns in public engage in silly,
juvenile name-calling behavior that undermines their position. Ironic,
isn't it?

To be fair, shame on you Norminn, for name calling. In addition, we've not
seen his actual brain so we don't know if it's pin head-sized, pea-sized,
walnut-sized, etc. (-:

How do the violent crime rates of NYC/Chicago compare, by
year, from 1960 to present? To what do you attribute the difference?

A majority of criminologists and sociologists attribute the drop in crime
rates to a number of causes. Many believe that improvements in both
surveillance and forensic technology are the factors most responsible for
the decrease in recent years. Video and DNA evidence is hard to refute and
repeat offenders who used to walk are now serving jail time. Personally I
find those factors far more compelling in explaining the decrease than lead
poisoning but I wouldn't discount the lead theory entirely. I just wouldn't
expect much intelligent discussion of it to happen here.
)-:

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice...a-is-safer-now

Of course, those who believe that www.americanrifleman.com or similar sites
are reputable and "neutral" sources of crime statistics have already drawn
the low card in the "forehead" poker game of personal credibility. There
aren't any unbiased studies I know of that can prove the drop of crime has
been caused by an increase in gun ownership. Of course, there's John Lott's
"work" but he impugned his own ethics by using a sockpuppet to give positive
reviews for his book:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lo...y_Rosh_persona

There are some other serious problems with Lott's alleged "research" as
well:

Lott claimed to have undertaken a national survey of 2,424 respondents in
1997, the results of which were the source for claims he had made beginning
in 1997. However, in 2000 Lott was unable to produce the data, or any
records showing that the survey had been undertaken.

Whoops! Faking data and creating fake personalities to review his work
pretty much discredits that "research" completely although it doesn't seem
to keep gun advocates from repeatedly quoting his results as if they were
not just credible, but the gospel straight from God.

--
Bobby G.