Crime in Our Community

Just don't go to an isolated beach alone. If there are other people around you will be fine. At least get one beach day while you are down. They are breathtakingly beautiful.

dougtamjj, yes they are and I have daydreamed over pictures and videos for years. I can hardly wait to see it live! 😎

Any beach by a hotel is going to be fine. Being new here for just a few days you'd be hard-pressed to find the isolated beaches.

It's not too hard - just look at Wikimapia 🙂

Any beach by a hotel is going to be fine. Being new here for just a few days you'd be hard-pressed to find the isolated beaches.

Wikimapia is great for understanding the lay of the land. Thanks br1k! I am going to try my best to memorize the Eastern half of the island to Charlotte Amalie before I go. I don't expect to see any street signs though. Lucky for me the island is pretty small. Yes, I can see I am going to have to get a car. I'll be up at sunrise to practice driving these curvy roads! Watch out for driving practice - honk honk! 😮

My favorite westerns are the ones in which the towns people, living in fear of the wild gang of outlaws, sees the lone sheriff, doing his duty, ready to stand against evil at the shootout at dawn. At the last minute the shopkeepers and other townsfolk pick up their rifles and handguns and stand with the lawman to put the gang in their place. Only then does peace return to the town. As long as the townsfolk are willing to let the gang walk all over them, that is exactly what the evil ones do.

TV/Movies - not real life. History does not support this portrayal.
West was in large part settled by Civil War vets. Do you think they really lived in fear of someone with a gun? No they shot them if they needed shot. Sure there were a few bad guy gangs but they didn't last terribly long. Was for most part a polite and educated society. No TV or movies so Shakespeare and other writers work performed. Go drive thru old towns in the states and notice how many have community theater halls.

EVERY state that has passed concealed carry laws has seen a drop in crime.
Every country that has banned gun ownership has seen a large increase. Australia being the latest and most prominent example of this fact.

I realize this will have no effect on those who "know better":

My 2Cents.

Actually, no doubt for the benefit of tourists, they have those little signs with starts of different colors and numbers, that seem to correspond to the "tourist map" of the island, the one from a free tourist brochure. Map is pretty low on detail, only covers main roads - but those do seem to match. There are also route number signs everywhere, certainly at all intersections. Personally I prefer it that way - I am better with numbers than with names 🙂

Wikimapia is great for understanding the lay of the land. Thanks br1k! I am going to try my best to memorize the Eastern half of the island to Charlotte Amalie before I go. I don't expect to see any street signs though. Lucky for me the island is pretty small. Yes, I can see I am going to have to get a car. I'll be up at sunrise to practice driving these curvy roads! Watch out for driving practice - honk honk! 😮

Michaelds9,

You bring up a great point. One of the first states to allow 'concealed carry' was Florida. This was done because people were being robbed on a routine basis at rest stops. Once citizens were allowed to arm themselves (funny...I thought we already had that right and it was protected by some document...I think it was called the Bill of Rights or something...) the robberies, and other violent crimes, dropped immediately and drastically. Actually, my dad lives in St. Cloud (outside of Orlando) and within the last year, a few criminals were killed by people they were trying to rob and the police statement on the issue was, "criminals need to watch out because people are defending themselves and they have a right to do so". Personally, I was a little shocked by the response from police, but I can sure as hell appreciate it. Conversely, if you look at places like New York, Chicago, DC, etc firearm carry has been banned, crime is rampant and the citizens have no recourse.

Moving right along, I'd like to address the post by "L". While I recognize these are not necessarily your views, I still feel the need to discuss them as they have been posted and may influence the opinions of some here.

With the exception of sociopaths, most criminals commit crime out of "passion" or out of "opportunity".
A crime of passion is one in which the victim and assailant know each other and it is motivated by contention in their relationship, I'm sure most people understand the concept so I wont go further.
A crime of opportunity happens when someone finds an 'easy target' (either for robbery, rape, assault, etc.) There was a study done where someone interviewed convicted rapists in prison. The rapists basically said they were looking for a woman who was 1 walking alone; 2 had nothing he could see to protect herself (umbrella, heavy purse, etc); 3 looked like she would not put up a fight. They also said that if a victim were to fight back they would generally give up. Clearly, if a victim had pulled a gun on one of these guys, the crime wouldn't have happened. Now, with robberies of opportunity. I've already made a distinction between common criminals and sociopaths. Most criminals who would rob someone do so because they aren't actively aware of their situation and are most likely not armed. If a common criminal (non-sociopath) knew a person was armed he would find an easier target because he a) doesn't want to get shot, and it's never certain who will be shot first; and b) would rather get caught for armed robbery than for murder. Criminals only break the law if they think they can get away with it and most criminals understand that they're more likely to be caught for murder than for robbery.

Therefore, logic tells us that if citizens are armed, and the criminals don't know who is and is not armed, they will be less likely to commit crime. Those who would still commit crime and would take it to "the next level" because they don't know who is armed are most likely sociopaths and will commit violent crime regardless of whether or not citizens are armed. With an armed citizenry, these sociopaths would be dealt with quickly.

EVERY state that has passed concealed carry laws has seen a drop in crime.

I realize this will have no effect on those who "know better":

My 2Cents.

This is not exactly true.
States which did not pass carry/conceal ALSO experienced a drop in crime.

And....
John Lott, the 'researcher' who's stats and book gave rise to this popular myth about carry/conceal among gun advocates, has been widely discredited, --even by experts he quoted in his own book.

One case in point: Lott's findings have been DISMISSED by Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck, an NRA-praised crime researcher, whom Lott promotes in his book as an expert on gun crime.

----

Two recent guns deaths, and the recent shooting involving that school bus here in the USVI, point out the danger of people firing guns in public spaces, even when they are not aiming their gun at the person who ended up killed or shot. The fewer people with guns and bullets, the better off for us bystanders.

 

Neil,

When you make it criminal to possess a firearm, only criminals will possess firearms.

I don't know....I don't see why anyone wants me to go up against a gun toting criminal with my bare hands! You WANT us all to be victims?

I recently posted the crime stats from the community I moved from. They are sweet stats! It's a small rural community and although I didn't know everyone, the hats I wore introduced me to many of the folks that lived there. I didn't know anyone - not a single person - that didn't own guns. Because we were way out in the country, police response times could be slow. It could take upwards of 10 minutes for the police to respond (that would be an amazingly fast response in the VI) so people looked out for their own and looked out for their neighbors.

Is there a direct correlation between gun ownership and low crime rates? I don't know. Perhaps. Personally, I think that the bad guys will think twice if they think there are pretty good odds of being greeted by the business end of a 12 gauge.

Alternative stats

* Garen J. Wintemute, M.D., M.P.H. published a Perspective titled, “Guns, Fear, the Constitution, and the Public’s Health” in the April 3, 2008 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM). In reference to the move to de-regulated gun use, Dr. Wintemute says, “Such policies are founded on myths. One is that increasing gun ownership decreases crime rates — a position that has been discredited… Gun ownership and gun violence rise and fall together… Another myth is that defensive gun use is very common. The most widely quoted estimate, 2.5 million occurrences a year, is too high by a factor of 10… “
* Also in the same issue of NEJM, read the accompanying editorial, “Handgun Violence, Public Health, and the Law“ by Gregory D. Curfman, MD and colleagues.
* The NEJM Website has also posted an interview with Damid Hemenway (a professor of health policy at the Harvard School of Public Health) “on gun violence in the United States and the likely effects of the Supreme Court case D.C. v. Heller.”
* The Violence Policy Center April 28, 2008 press release, “Pro-Gun” States Lead the Nation in Per Capita Firearm Death Rates“ is an analysis of 2005 statistics from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. Among other things, this analysis shows that the 5 US states (Louisiana, Alaska, Montana, Tennessee, Alabama) with the highest gun-related deaths also have the highest (by far) percentages of household gun-ownership compared with the 5 states (Hawaii, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Jersey, New York) with the lowest gun death rates. For example, in Alaska where 60.6% of households own guns, the gun-related death rate was 17.49 per 100,000 persons. In contrast, with 9.7% of households owning guns, Hawaii had a gun-related death rate of 2.20 per 100,000.
* The ACLU position piece on gun control (published 3/4/2002)

AS PER

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/358/14/1421
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/358/14/1503
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/NEJMe0802118/DC1
http://www.vpc.org/press/0804gundeath.htm
http://www.aclu.org/crimjustice/gen/35904res20020304.html

Please note again I am not arguing based on my beliefs rather I am trying to extract information from both sides for analysis. Everyone have a wonderful day!

L by your post one can only conclude unarmed people are in the best position to survive an encounter with persons who are armed.

This does not seem quite logical to me.

Sorta like saying sheep have a better chance of survival than do the wolves.

I don't know what to say to that. I guess it would go back to the idea that introducing another gun just escalates the level of violence. If someone pulls a gun on me and I don't have a gun it gives them less of a reason to shoot me. Emotionally I strongly disagree with this as I would want to shoot back/defend myself/neutralize the threat, but logically I can see this point of view. I do believe the most effective method would be to treat the root causes of why people turn to crime thus reducing the amount of criminals in the first place. Would I personally like to carry a gun, possibly. Statistics are hard to read as there are so many factors, and you can find studies which will prove any point of view that you want.

Michael,
I think most people would say having a gun or using it to protect your life is your right.

But in the real world situation here on St. Croix, pulling out your "concealed" revolver in the middle of a crowded restaurant to protect your wallet is a really BAD idea.

The big problem here is not bad people with guns, it is bad people who are smart enough to break in and steal things when you are not there.

I'm not suggesting protecting your wallet if you have the sense that's as far as it would go.
But if you feel your life or the life of loved ones are at risk that requires a different order of response - does it not?

How many of the murders are the result of the aggressors response to attempts by the victim to defend himself?

Anyone got a UNBIASED number for that?

Now, what do the FBI Uniform Crime reports show about firearm issues? Well, when looking at the issue of allowing people to carry concealed firearms (31 states currently allow any law abiding citizen to be able to get a permit to carry a concealed firearm, no "need" is required, which allows them to carry a firearm concealed just about anywhere they go), the FBI Uniform Crime Reports show that allow concealed carry by the general public have a 28% lower homicide rate, and 33% lower firearm homicide rate and a 38% lower handgun homicide rate.

To look at a specific state, Florida started allowing concealed carry by the general public in 1987. In that time, their homicide rate has dropped 27%, its firearm homicide rate has dropped 34% and their handgun homicide rate has dropped 38%. In the same period, the national rates rose 8%, 28% and 43% respectively.

Another good study from the UCR is Washington DC. Up until 1976, they had average crime rates and little gun control. In 1976, they enacted very stiff gun controls and after those gun controls went into effect, their crime rates skyrocketed. Right now, according to the FBI UCR, their homicide rate is about 70 per 100,000 people, while, right across the bridge in Arlington, the rate is about 2 per 100,000 people (the current national average is about 9 per 100,000 people).

There has been a major study, done at the University of Chicago by Prof. John Lott, which has very closely investigated this issue. This study looked at every county in the US, over the time period of 1977 to 1992, in an attempt to determine the impact of allowing the general public to carry concealed firearms. This study found that allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent crimes and it appears to produce no increase in accidental deaths. If those states which did not have right-to-carry concealed gun provisions had adopted them in 1992, approximately 1,570 murders; 4,177 rapes; and over 60,000 aggravate assaults would have been avoided yearly.

You can read this study for yourself at http://law.lib.uchicago.edu/faculty/lott/guns.html. Also, you can listen to Prof. Lott himself discuss the study, and listen to a few of his critics give their positions at http://www.cato.org/realaudio/audiopages/gunlaws.html

http://www.exit109.com/~gosta/guncntrl.sht

Another good study from the UCR is Washington DC. Up until 1976, they had average crime rates and little gun control. In 1976, they enacted very stiff gun controls and after those gun controls went into effect, their crime rates skyrocketed. Right now, according to the FBI UCR, their homicide rate is about 70 per 100,000 people, while, right across the bridge in Arlington, the rate is about 2 per 100,000 people (the current national average is about 9 per 100,000 people)

Homicide rate in Washington DC was at 10-11 until mid-1960s and steadily growing from 1965 until 1975 (from 11 to 77 per 100K). From 1976 on it actually dropped for a while till mid-80s, then went up again until 1996.

The current Washington DC homicide rate is 31 per 100000 people. Last time it was over 70 was in 1996. It steadily dropped from 1996 to 2008, primarily due to changing socio-economic situation.

So - your data for Washington DC is complete fiction, and apparently so are your conclusions about it.

Disclaimer: I have no side in pro or anti-gun debate. I used to own guns, I don't now, I generally don't care. However I do care that anyone presenting presumably facts and data keep them honest and correct.

(Data source: http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.htm)

Where did you get your stats, br1k ? What am I missing here?

http://mpdc.dc.gov/mpdc/cwp/view,a,1239,q,561242,mpdcNav_GID,1523,mpdcNav,%7C.asp

LOL...nevermind - per 100K. OK, I'll go back to sitting on my hands...

I researched (non-professionally) the effect of conceal / carry re: decrease in crime and violations by license holders. In general, crime decreases and the number of violations and revocations is 0.01%. Regardless, personal protection is personal...no one can do it for you or define how you should go about it. If you feel that you need to carry a weapon to defend yourself then you need to make a few choices: move to a safer place or arm yourself . Whether it is "legal" or not is irrelevant, the slaves who revolted committed an illegal act...or...philisophically, did they? Either way, I've said it before: there is no crime in being poor, only acting poorly.

$48k in possible misuse of funds is chump change. Obviously corruption thrives because they know there is little chance of getting caught (despite the press clippings of certain agencies) and if caught the chances of having to pay for their misdeeds is also small (this may be the fault of the judicial system or just public apathy)..

Politicians and political hacks will only get the message when they are voted out. All incumbents Dems and Rep. should be voted out and that goes with all their commisoners also. Its all a shell game. One hand feeds the other. This is just not a VI problem but also a national problem

FACT IS:

A gun or firearm is not a weapon until used as such. Same with a fork, an axe, or a vehicle.

What we need to figure out here is how to prepare ourselves for the potential unexpected infringement on our right to freely walk around and socialize in a community-minded fashion without letting ourselves be victims to the few who are unlawful.

What is the right thing to carry? For one it might be a gun,for another it might be a personal alarm. But, more importantly is that we all be aware until the horrific element of crime is under control.