The Crime Spike Is No Mystery
It's true in Illinois, and elsewhere.
Editor's Note
This is a follow-on to my previous piece on what data is revealed when Statisticians Study Gun Control. Given the article below details issues in Chicago (but could apply in any similar metropolitan area), this is especially poignant in light of recent Illinois legislation.
The Atlantic got this one (mostly) right. I know, I’m as surprised as you are. While author Patrick Sharkey has foolishly contributed to anti-gun rhetoric in the past, the basic thesis here correctly identifies that violence is a multi-dimensional socio-economic issue that can never be solved (or even addressed) by attempting to legislate away the right to keep and bear arms. Tens of millions of Americans can freely possess all the guns, magazines, and ammunition they want and will never commit unwarranted violence, however, a tiny percentage of disenfranchised people with a lack of options or hope (or even just the perception thereof) just might. Adding government policy that reduces or removes the ramifications of criminal misconduct to this situation only makes things worse.
Comedian Chris Rock has a bit about how having a mortgage makes you act right and there’s a kernel of truth there. People signing a 15-30 year contractual obligation along with having a long-term financial plan for getting ahead have a positive outlook about their future, which is a very different outlook compared to those that don’t. The availability of firearms or lack thereof won’t change either case or help anyone.
The Crime Spike Is No Mystery
By zooming out and looking at the big picture, the question of what causes violence becomes quite answerable.
by Patrick Sharkey
To answer this question requires thinking less in terms of months and years, and more in terms of decades. It requires thinking less about specific neighborhoods and cities where violence is common, and more about larger metropolitan areas where inequality is extreme and the affluent live separated from the poor. And it requires thinking less about individual criminals and victims, and more about bigger social forces, including demographic shifts, changes in urban labor markets, and social policies implemented by states and the federal government.
All told, nearly six decades of data on violence in Chicago’s neighborhoods point to an unmistakable conclusion: Producing a sustained reduction in violence may not be possible without addressing extreme, persistent segregation by race, ethnicity, and income.
New suburbs and exurbs outside Chicago and St. Louis [and elsewhere] quickly established zoning codes that would not allow for apartments or other forms of affordable housing to be built, meaning local property taxes would fund services only for relatively well-off residents. As the most advantaged segments of the urban population moved elsewhere, the share of city budgets funded by the federal government dwindled and political influence in state legislatures shifted away from the cities.
When residents fled and government support dropped, the institutions left behind started to crumble. Churches lost their members, schools fell apart, parks were not maintained, and poverty became concentrated. On the streets, police departments were asked to deal with all of the problems that come with concentrated disadvantage, such as homelessness, mental illness, and addiction. This was remarkably unfair and unwise: Law enforcement is entirely ill-suited to solve the problems that come with extreme urban inequality.
This policy of abandonment and punishment left urban neighborhoods weakened. The government dominated public spaces by force rather than investing in institutions that strengthen neighborhoods; it removed residents from their communities rather than supporting them. The Harvard University professor Robert Sampson’s research in Chicago shows that when poverty is concentrated and institutions don’t function, neighbors are less able to come together to solve common problems. Parents are less likely to know the parents of their children’s friends; adults are more wary of stepping in when unsupervised young people are causing trouble; families are more likely to retreat to their homes instead of venturing out in public space.
Researchers have accumulated lots of evidence showing that redesigning abandoned lots, providing high-quality summer jobs and extracurricular programs for students, and asking police to work with residents to solve localized problems can be extremely effective ways to reduce violence.
Despite popular misconceptions, human progress has been mostly positive throughout history. One of those is realizing that America Is Relatively Safe and Tolerant and that Americans are twice as likely to be struck by lightning than be a victim of a mass shooting. Another is The Great Decline in Poverty Over Time. While improved, it isn’t solved as Mr. Sharkey’s article demonstrates. Moving in that direction will have real improvements in reducing violent crime and other issues, something the naivety of “ban guns” can never do.
On the firearms front, gun owners offer real solutions for gun safety. For example, Small Arms Firing School has been held as a part of the National Matches for over a century. Watch a video series demonstrating the instruction and interviews with happy participants.