Seems gentrification of the area is key, here. I imagine those that could still afford the suburbs of Oakland, but not the gentrified areas of Oakland itself, are probably fairly peaceful people...
Seems gentrification of the area is key, here. I imagine those that could still afford the suburbs of Oakland, but not the gentrified areas of Oakland itself, are probably fairly peaceful people with decent enough jobs and those that couldn't even afford the suburbs of Oakland and maybe more prone to crime moved to...Stockton? Combined with community efforts, the drop makes sense to me.
Total hypothesis. I wonder what the gentrification and community activism story is for those cities where gun violence hasn't changed much.
And, cynically, maybe the stats were fixed. 30% drop in gun violence surely would earn some political points.
I read the article and it didn't specifically refute that. Some people had a problem with that line of thinking, though, as it belittles the work they've done, which I understand. And I'm not...
I read the article and it didn't specifically refute that. Some people had a problem with that line of thinking, though, as it belittles the work they've done, which I understand. And I'm not saying community activism has no part in this, but a sharp decline in the past 10 years (in fact, if you read this report it looks closer to 5) can be attributed to both outreach and increase in average income, whether by locals or transplants. I find it hard to believe that the other cities cited in that case study don't have their own forms of community outreach to lower gun violence, yet those other cities' numbers are rising. I'm just positing that gentrification might be a catalyst, but, like I said, I'd have to see those other cities' stats. As always, I'm very open to being wrong.
Edit: Further reading into the source provided above shows that most of the community outreach programs were ineffective, however Operation Ceasefire (initiated in 2012) helped bring a dramatic reduction in gun violence in Oakland and other cities.
Seems gentrification of the area is key, here. I imagine those that could still afford the suburbs of Oakland, but not the gentrified areas of Oakland itself, are probably fairly peaceful people with decent enough jobs and those that couldn't even afford the suburbs of Oakland and maybe more prone to crime moved to...Stockton? Combined with community efforts, the drop makes sense to me.
Total hypothesis. I wonder what the gentrification and community activism story is for those cities where gun violence hasn't changed much.
And, cynically, maybe the stats were fixed. 30% drop in gun violence surely would earn some political points.
They specifically refute your premise in the article. It's decades of violence prevention work that has reduced the shooting rate, not gentrification.
I read the article and it didn't specifically refute that. Some people had a problem with that line of thinking, though, as it belittles the work they've done, which I understand. And I'm not saying community activism has no part in this, but a sharp decline in the past 10 years (in fact, if you read this report it looks closer to 5) can be attributed to both outreach and increase in average income, whether by locals or transplants. I find it hard to believe that the other cities cited in that case study don't have their own forms of community outreach to lower gun violence, yet those other cities' numbers are rising. I'm just positing that gentrification might be a catalyst, but, like I said, I'd have to see those other cities' stats. As always, I'm very open to being wrong.
Edit: Further reading into the source provided above shows that most of the community outreach programs were ineffective, however Operation Ceasefire (initiated in 2012) helped bring a dramatic reduction in gun violence in Oakland and other cities.