Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I know as part of the 2018 package of, ridiculous, gun laws the reporting of gun crimes was a part of the "pledge" from Governor Interloper.  I reviewed the PPTs posted to the NJ SP website but they data isn't useful for anything other than counting.  There is no details whatsoever to do any analysis on the information.  I will start searching but will also ask here if there is a better source of gun crime in NJ that provides details?    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, DirtyDigz said:

I just had the same thought, great idea!  One of the 2A orgs should formally do it, and publicize it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, DirtyDigz said:

....."Gov. Phil Murphy talked about the troubling trend at his briefing Wednesday afternoon.

“We’re not immune to what we’re seeing around the country in terms of this lethal cocktail of being pent up, hot weather, trying to undo the state of racism, folks trying to come to grips with community and police relations. There’s a lot of non-COVID violence everywhere, seems like everywhere in the country,” the governor said."

Notice that Murphy didn't make any reference to him shutting down businesses and schools, locking people in their homes, killing many people's economic future and FORCING over a million people out of work! Yeah, blame it on hot weather (that we have EVERY year)..  :facepalm:

  • Like 1
  • FacePalm 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Sniper said:

....."Gov. Phil Murphy talked about the troubling trend at his briefing Wednesday afternoon.

“We’re not immune to what we’re seeing around the country in terms of this lethal cocktail of being pent up, hot weather, trying to undo the state of racism, folks trying to come to grips with community and police relations. There’s a lot of non-COVID violence everywhere, seems like everywhere in the country,” the governor said."

Notice that Murphy didn't make any reference to him shutting down businesses and schools, locking people in their homes, killing many people's economic future and FORCING over a million people out of work! Yeah, blame it on hot weather (that we have EVERY year)..  :facepalm:

Interesting quote:  "There's a lot of non-covid violence everywhere, seems like everywhere in the country."  What about pro-covid19 violence?!  I wonder of he thinks that kind is more prevalent.  Just doing a logic rant.  Thanks for listening!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/4/2020 at 9:06 AM, Rob0115 said:

I know as part of the 2018 package of, ridiculous, gun laws the reporting of gun crimes was a part of the "pledge" from Governor Interloper.  I reviewed the PPTs posted to the NJ SP website but they data isn't useful for anything other than counting.  There is no details whatsoever to do any analysis on the information.  I will start searching but will also ask here if there is a better source of gun crime in NJ that provides details?    

If you look at the broken nature of the FID/permit process... and the really ancient technology they're using for that... I wouldn't be surprised if this data is, in fact, very difficult to pull and aggregate. That's why it clearly says in the VERY TINY, VERY PALE print: The information in this report is based upon data from NJTrace, submitted by arresting agencies. It is preliminary and subject to further analysis. So, that's ONE of the problems. In a sense, they're just throwing spaghetti against the wall and then trying to weave a political "narrative" around it.

Many months back when they first came up with the gun trace data - I did a little very "quick & dirty" comparative analysis based on population statistics (as per the most recent census). For instance, if memory serves me correctly, at the time, Newark comprised only a few percent of the state's population, yet its residents were, shall we say, "outperforming themselves" by generating more than 9 percent of the state's gun traces in the particular quarterly report I looked at (so 3x more than you would have expected). If you then looked at actual crime stats - not just gun traces but shootings as per the regular crime data also shared on the NJSP website - you saw a very similar disproportionate scenario (so the gun trace and gun crime data does seem to correlate closely). Further, and I'm going on memory here, but a handful of our worst cities - Newark, Paterson, Trenton, etc. - were I think about 15 percent of the state's population at the time, but were generating more than 50 percent of the gun crime!!!

A quick glance at the July report on the webpage now shows something similar - Newark and their brethren bad boy cities are once again - outperforming themselves! (BTW, if you broke it down by neighborhoods, as John Lott does, you'd probably see that one or more bad 'hoods in Newark and other cities are waaaaaaay outperforming their population numbers).

The only reason I point this out... is because the Guvna not only promoted this report to show that "other states" were providing the guns (there's a lot of logical fallacies there, too), but he also promoted a theory in all of his speeches that these reports revealed an equally shared "state-wide gun violence epidemic". Yet, when you start crunching numbers against population, you quickly see the OPPOSITE is true... that gun crime in NJ (as it is in other places) is, in fact, a highly localized problem that requires local solutions/programs. The whole report is CRAP IMO. It is the worst travesty of "statistical crime analysis" that I could ever imagine. 

For instance, they list the "make" of the gun used and Smith & Wesson tops the list. Well, duh... it's also one of the most popular/prolific manufacturers in the country and has been for a loooong time. (It would be like saying, "OMG, Hondas are involved in a LOT of car accidents!!" So what? They are also one of the most common cars on American roads. Therefore, it means NOTHING-NADA-ZILCH). It's just an attempt - and a weak one at that - to smear the gun manufacturers. All of these reports are garbage - meant to promote narratives that are either irrelevant or outright lies. Ugh, I've personally wanted to do a video on this for awhile, but got caught up with caretaking, then grieving, then handling estate matters, etc. You know, LIFE! But yeah, even the bare bones data they do provide can be easily ripped to shreds!

The problem is... now that the state administration has thoroughly infiltrated Rutgers (their criminology program was once a fine source of crime data), you'll never again get any meaningful crime statistics coming out of the state university. No one will be counting: How many were ex-felons when they committed the gun crime? How many were ex-felons still on parole? How many weren't ex-felons, but had a rap sheet of misdemeanors? How many had their guns illegally? etc., etc. The Bureau of Justice Statistic does some of that at the Fed level, but you'll never again get it at the state-level in NJ. It's just too biased at Rutgers now - they are owned by the administration. It's going to be a very one-sided tale everyone will be handed from this point forward.

  • Like 4
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, gleninjersey said:

@Mrs. Peel you should write some articles for @Smokin .50.  Jus sayin'

IF WISHING ONLY MADE IT SO.....and yes I've asked & yes she has an open invitation to write on any topic she wants :) 

~R

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Mrs. Peel said:

... he also promoted a theory in all of his speeches that these reports revealed an equally shared "state-wide gun violence epidemic". Yet, when you start crunching numbers against population, you quickly see the OPPOSITE is true... that gun crime in NJ (as it is in other places) is, in fact, a highly localized problem that requires local solutions/programs.

This is completely true on a national level as well.  Take out the data from the top urban areas (and get even more local and specifically from those neighborhoods) and you quickly see those cities represent the vast majority of the data.  New York, Baltimore, Chicago, etc.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, tomk62 said:

... I think she just did. :)

I need permission from @Mrs. Peel to copy & paste it, then I need to search for a file photo to use with it.  So how about it Peel?  What say YOU?

Rosey

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Smokin .50 - No! Sorry, you can't copy & paste that. Goodness, that's not a proper article! It's full of "remembered" data and too much personal commentary. But, I agree the "seeds" of an article are there. I'm not sure what good it will do, but you want an article and think it can be of use... dammit, I'll give you an article! (LOL) You've certainly asked enough times, and I've felt bad that I didn't comply. (To be fair though, life threw a LOT of difficult personal situations at me the last couple of years...).

I'll set aside some time this week to re-crunch the numbers. Then I'll edit it up, put a title on it, add a nice visual or 2 with captions, and I'll send it to you by the end of next week. Hang tight.... 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


@Mrs. Peel I built a spreadsheet a few years ago that looked at the shootings in the NJ cities vs % population.  It’s stunning.  The 5 towns (Newark, Paterson, Trenton, Jersey City, Camden) comprise 9.5% of the population but are responsible for 67.12% of shooting incidents, 62% of shooting murders and 69.58% shooting victims. 
 

This is probably 4 or 5 years old but I’d guess it hasn’t improved.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Rob0115 said:


@Mrs. Peel I built a spreadsheet a few years ago that looked at the shootings in the NJ cities vs % population.  It’s stunning.  The 5 towns (Newark, Paterson, Trenton, Jersey City, Camden) comprise 9.5% of the population but are responsible for 67.12% of shooting incidents, 62% of shooting murders and 69.58% shooting victims. 
 

This is probably 4 or 5 years old but I’d guess it hasn’t improved.  

Did you add a column for number of years the city has been under democratic control?  Because that would be interesting...

  • Like 1
  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Rob0115 said:


@Mrs. Peel I built a spreadsheet a few years ago that looked at the shootings in the NJ cities vs % population.  It’s stunning.  The 5 towns (Newark, Paterson, Trenton, Jersey City, Camden) comprise 9.5% of the population but are responsible for 67.12% of shooting incidents, 62% of shooting murders and 69.58% shooting victims. 
 

This is probably 4 or 5 years old but I’d guess it hasn’t improved.  

Yup, as I recall... I came up with highly similar results. It was eye-opening for me personally. 

To take it a step further though, I personally believe the influence of crime in those troubled cities is even far greater than the statistics reveal... because the (usually gang-related) violence spreads like ripples in a pond to surrounding communities and drives THEIR crime stats up as well. Did you ever look at the published police blotters of Montclair or Glen Ridge, for instance? Most of the people caught committing crimes in those towns hail from Newark and some of the other nearby high-crime cities you mentioned. I mean, was it a surprise to anyone with a brain that the crew that murdered that young guy at the Short Hills Mall several years back hailed from Newark? I've always thought someone should do a study on the origin of where perpetrators come from as well as where they commit the crime. For a lot of obvious reasons - many of them socioeconomic - residents of Montclair and Glen Ridge aren't going into Newark and committing crimes there, and yet the reverse is "the norm". I think it would be a revealing exercise....

In fact, funny enough... over the years, I would scan the police blotter covering Easton, PA (a city not far from me) - and it was astounding how many people arrested for violent crimes and drug crimes in Easton were residents of Newark... Paterson...Irvington, etc. Much of that is due to organized gang activity would be my guess. So, my hunch is that if you followed those "concentric circles" within NJ, whereby crime spreads out from the high-crime areas to nearby low-crime areas, you'd probably find that the the residents of those 5 cities you mentioned, Rob, are probably in reality generating far more than 62 percent of NJ's murders by firearm.

After all, we know from decades of modern criminology study that it's really very few people who commit the worst crimes... but they tend to commit them repeatedly and, naturally, they bring the havoc with them anywhere they visit.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Mrs. Peel said:

Yup, as I recall... I came up with highly similar results. It was eye-opening for me personally. 

To take it a step further though, I personally believe the influence of crime in those troubled cities is even far greater than the statistics reveal... because the (usually gang-related) violence spreads like ripples in a pond to surrounding communities and drives THEIR crime stats up as well. Did you ever look at the published police blotters of Montclair or Glen Ridge, for instance? Most of the people caught committing crimes in those towns hail from Newark and some of the other nearby high-crime cities you mentioned. I mean, was it a surprise to anyone with a brain that the crew that murdered that young guy at the Short Hills Mall several years back hailed from Newark? I've always thought someone should do a study on the origin of where perpetrators come from as well as where they commit the crime. For a lot of obvious reasons - many of them socioeconomic - residents of Montclair and Glen Ridge aren't going into Newark and committing crimes there, and yet the reverse is "the norm". I think it would be a revealing exercise....

In fact, funny enough... over the years, I would scan the police blotter covering Easton, PA (a city not far from me) - and it was astounding how many people arrested for violent crimes and drug crimes in Easton were residents of Newark... Paterson...Irvington, etc. Much of that is due to organized gang activity would be my guess. So, my hunch is that if you followed those "concentric circles" within NJ, whereby crime spreads out from the high-crime areas to nearby low-crime areas, you'd probably find that the the residents of those 5 cities you mentioned, Rob, are probably in reality generating far more than 62 percent of NJ's murders by firearm.

After all, we know from decades of modern criminology study that it's really very few people who commit the worst crimes... but they tend to commit them repeatedly and, naturally, they bring the havoc with them anywhere they visit.

Yes a study of origin not just where the crime occurred is important.  Think of the crime at short hills mall for example.  The famous car jacking was Irvington residents.

outside of gang related activities I think some of it desperation as well.  
 

Finally I’d like to get before Murphy’s gun law package and post gun crime stats.  We all know nothing has changed thus the uselessness of burdening non-criminals with ridiculous restrictions.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Mrs. Peel said:

@Smokin .50 - No! Sorry, you can't copy & paste that. Goodness, that's not a proper article! It's full of "remembered" data and too much personal commentary. But, I agree the "seeds" of an article are there. I'm not sure what good it will do, but you want an article and think it can be of use... dammit, I'll give you an article! (LOL) You've certainly asked enough times, and I've felt bad that I didn't comply. (To be fair though, life threw a LOT of difficult personal situations at me the last couple of years...).

I'll set aside some time this week to re-crunch the numbers. Then I'll edit it up, put a title on it, add a nice visual or 2 with captions, and I'll send it to you by the end of next week. Hang tight.... 

@Mrs. Peel  Your "personal commentary" is like Spock's "best guess" flying a Klingon Bird of Prey to slingshot around the sun to time travel forward in Star Trek IV, The Voyage Home.  Meaning it's often exceedingly correct to a fault, lol.

Remember that "personal commentary" can always morph into an Op-Ed format.  Opinions, especially those expressed by female shooters (instead of fat, bald, white guys) delivered in an Op-Ed format are quite readable.  Facts & figures are nice, don't get me wrong, but POWER emanates from OPINIONS formed by the majority.  The ol' "hey, I feel the same way she does" goes a long way at capturing the reader & forcing them to the finish line.  Dry numbers, expressed without a story or EMOTIONAL ATTACHMENT tend to make readers fall asleep and/or scroll-on by & not share the piece :) 

I'll shut up now and let you GET TO WORK (DAMMIT!)...

~R

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Smokin .50 said:

@Mrs. Peel  Your "personal commentary" is like Spock's "best guess" flying a Klingon Bird of Prey to slingshot around the sun to time travel forward in Star Trek IV, The Search For Spock.  Meaning it's often exceedingly correct to a fault, lol.

Remember that "personal commentary" can always morph into an Op-Ed format.  Opinions, especially those expressed by female shooters (instead of fat, bald, white guys) delivered in an Op-Ed format are quite readable.  Facts & figures are nice, don't get me wrong, but POWER emanates from OPINIONS formed by the majority.  The ol' "hey, I feel the same way she does" goes a long way at capturing the reader & forcing them to the finish line.  Dry numbers, expressed without a story or EMOTIONAL ATTACHMENT tend to make readers fall asleep and/or scroll-on by & not share the piece :) 

I'll shut up now and let you GET TO WORK (DAMMIT!)...

~R

 

 

@Smiles31 please clarify all the trekky references. 
starwars is better 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Zeke said:

Oh powder smoker, I’ve seen them all. The newbie girl that drives all the way from Manhattan to shoot with us is a yuge treky 

Just a note we prefer Trekker.

 

  • Agree 1
  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Mrs. Peel said:

Yup, as I recall... I came up with highly similar results. It was eye-opening for me personally. 

To take it a step further though, I personally believe the influence of crime in those troubled cities is even far greater than the statistics reveal... because the (usually gang-related) violence spreads like ripples in a pond to surrounding communities and drives THEIR crime stats up as well. Did you ever look at the published police blotters of Montclair or Glen Ridge, for instance? Most of the people caught committing crimes in those towns hail from Newark and some of the other nearby high-crime cities you mentioned. I mean, was it a surprise to anyone with a brain that the crew that murdered that young guy at the Short Hills Mall several years back hailed from Newark? I've always thought someone should do a study on the origin of where perpetrators come from as well as where they commit the crime. For a lot of obvious reasons - many of them socioeconomic - residents of Montclair and Glen Ridge aren't going into Newark and committing crimes there, and yet the reverse is "the norm". I think it would be a revealing exercise....

In fact, funny enough... over the years, I would scan the police blotter covering Easton, PA (a city not far from me) - and it was astounding how many people arrested for violent crimes and drug crimes in Easton were residents of Newark... Paterson...Irvington, etc. Much of that is due to organized gang activity would be my guess. So, my hunch is that if you followed those "concentric circles" within NJ, whereby crime spreads out from the high-crime areas to nearby low-crime areas, you'd probably find that the the residents of those 5 cities you mentioned, Rob, are probably in reality generating far more than 62 percent of NJ's murders by firearm.

After all, we know from decades of modern criminology study that it's really very few people who commit the worst crimes... but they tend to commit them repeatedly and, naturally, they bring the havoc with them anywhere they visit.

I've seen evidence of this down here in rural Salem County.  Salem City is a small economically depressed town full of closed factories and section 8 housing.  Camden has been trying to revitalize.  In 2012, a relative of mine who worked at the housing authority for Salem City told me that Camden was paying Salem to provide 468 Section 8 housing units for Camden residents.  This allowed Camden to start deporting low income people to Salem.  Salem naturally began seeing a huge increase in crimes related to drugs and gang activity as rival factions arrived and began fighting over the new territory.  There has been at least 1 murder in Salem every month this year and the population is less than 5,000.  

I grew up there when the factories were open and people who lived there were from there and for 18 years, I don't remember there being a shooting.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...