Chem, you know and I know that getting rid of guns is the ultimate end game of the Democratic party. They act like nothing has ever been done, but every few years the Feds pass new legislation to rein in gun freedoms one step at a time. Then a few years later, Democrats act like nothing has ever been done and we need some new additional restriction. They ultimately get that and then a few more years down the road the process repeats. This strategy is just a death by a thousand cuts approach, arguably to keep the issue in play for Democrats. I say all this, not as a gun guy, just a cynical observer of American politics.Packchem91 said:Show me one time I've said getting rid of guns? This is the common overreaction though. Omg, Maude, the gubmint gonna come hit our guns.Steve Videtich said:We already know what that response will be, as well as others. But, if your end goal is to eliminate guns, you also have a blind spot to the root causes of the issues. I just get tired of the "compared to other countries" argument.TheStorm said:I may have to call PackChem in for a ruling on this one...Steve Videtich said:
That's why I said Democrat run cities. Are these not perfect examples of what they would like to have on a national level?
Sure, there is some of that..but it's greatly overblown. And it's not nearly what I've suggested.
But it's a great way to gum up the works and then we go another 40 years before any reasonable reform
Packchem91 said:Steve Videtich said:TheStorm said:I may have to call PackChem in for a ruling on this one...Steve Videtich said:
That's why I said Democrat run cities. Are these not perfect examples of what they would like to have on a national level?
We already know what that response will be, as well as others. But, if your end goal is to eliminate guns, you also have a blind spot to the root causes of the issues. I just get tired of the "compared to other countries" argument.
Show me one time I've said getting rid of guns? This is the common overreaction though. Omg, Maude, the gubmint gonna come hit our guns.
Sure, there is some of that..but it's greatly overblown. And it's not nearly what I've suggested.
But it's a great way to gum up the works and then we go another 40 years before any reasonable reform
BBW12OG said:
Here's one for Civ...
https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-city-rankings/cities-with-most-murders
https://katv.com/news/nation-world/analysis-democrats-at-the-helm-of-11-of-the-15-deadliest-cities-in-us
Now look at the Top 20 on the first link. Please show me a Republican Mayor.
If I have to spell it out it's on you.
Common denominator.
PackFansXL said:Chem, you know and I know that getting rid of guns is the ultimate end game of the Democratic party. They act like nothing has ever been done, but every few years the Feds pass new legislation to rein in gun freedoms one step at a time. Then a few years later, Democrats act like nothing has ever been done and we need some new additional restriction. They ultimately get that and then a few more years down the road the process repeats. This strategy is just a death by a thousand cuts approach, arguably to keep the issue in play for Democrats. I say all this, not as a gun guy, just a cynical observer of American politics.Packchem91 said:Show me one time I've said getting rid of guns? This is the common overreaction though. Omg, Maude, the gubmint gonna come hit our guns.Steve Videtich said:We already know what that response will be, as well as others. But, if your end goal is to eliminate guns, you also have a blind spot to the root causes of the issues. I just get tired of the "compared to other countries" argument.TheStorm said:I may have to call PackChem in for a ruling on this one...Steve Videtich said:
That's why I said Democrat run cities. Are these not perfect examples of what they would like to have on a national level?
Sure, there is some of that..but it's greatly overblown. And it's not nearly what I've suggested.
But it's a great way to gum up the works and then we go another 40 years before any reasonable reform
ETA: It has been stated on here many times, the reason for focusing on Democrat run cities is to highlight both the end game under Democrat rule and to show the lack of effectiveness of that plan.
Civilized said:BBW12OG said:
Here's one for Civ...
https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-city-rankings/cities-with-most-murders
https://katv.com/news/nation-world/analysis-democrats-at-the-helm-of-11-of-the-15-deadliest-cities-in-us
Now look at the Top 20 on the first link. Please show me a Republican Mayor.
If I have to spell it out it's on you.
Common denominator.
Education, social safety net, and economic policy are not largely driven at the city level, they're legislated at the state and federal levels.
In the 25 states Trump carried in 2020, murder rates are 40% higher overall than in the states Biden won.
Mississippi, Louisiana, Kentucky, Alabama and Missouri - the five states with the highest per capita murder rate - all voted for Trump.
Eight of the 10 states with the highest murder rates lean Republican.
If I have to spell it out it's on you.
Common denominator.
Or, maybe party affiliation of mayors, reps, senators, and governors doesn't drive crime as much as education, poverty, and economic opportunity and associated policies.
A "city" of 300 people had 1 murder in "X" year... the next year, they had 2...Steve Videtich said:Civilized said:BBW12OG said:
Here's one for Civ...
https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-city-rankings/cities-with-most-murders
https://katv.com/news/nation-world/analysis-democrats-at-the-helm-of-11-of-the-15-deadliest-cities-in-us
Now look at the Top 20 on the first link. Please show me a Republican Mayor.
If I have to spell it out it's on you.
Common denominator.
Education, social safety net, and economic policy are not largely driven at the city level, they're legislated at the state and federal levels.
In the 25 states Trump carried in 2020, murder rates are 40% higher overall than in the states Biden won.
Mississippi, Louisiana, Kentucky, Alabama and Missouri - the five states with the highest per capita murder rate - all voted for Trump.
Eight of the 10 states with the highest murder rates lean Republican.
If I have to spell it out it's on you.
Common denominator.
Or, maybe party affiliation of mayors, reps, senators, and governors doesn't drive crime as much as education, poverty, and economic opportunity and associated policies.
Sorry that data is flawed. You're using a statewide rate in a city argument. Those are mostly rural states in nature. But, keep swinging a golf club in a game of baseball!
Steve Videtich said:Civilized said:BBW12OG said:
Here's one for Civ...
https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-city-rankings/cities-with-most-murders
https://katv.com/news/nation-world/analysis-democrats-at-the-helm-of-11-of-the-15-deadliest-cities-in-us
Now look at the Top 20 on the first link. Please show me a Republican Mayor.
If I have to spell it out it's on you.
Common denominator.
Education, social safety net, and economic policy are not largely driven at the city level, they're legislated at the state and federal levels.
In the 25 states Trump carried in 2020, murder rates are 40% higher overall than in the states Biden won.
Mississippi, Louisiana, Kentucky, Alabama and Missouri - the five states with the highest per capita murder rate - all voted for Trump.
Eight of the 10 states with the highest murder rates lean Republican.
If I have to spell it out it's on you.
Common denominator.
Or, maybe party affiliation of mayors, reps, senators, and governors doesn't drive crime as much as education, poverty, and economic opportunity and associated policies.
Sorry that data is flawed. You're using a statewide rate in a city argument. Those are mostly rural states in nature. But, keep swinging a golf club in a game of baseball!
Civilized said:Steve Videtich said:Civilized said:BBW12OG said:
Here's one for Civ...
https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-city-rankings/cities-with-most-murders
https://katv.com/news/nation-world/analysis-democrats-at-the-helm-of-11-of-the-15-deadliest-cities-in-us
Now look at the Top 20 on the first link. Please show me a Republican Mayor.
If I have to spell it out it's on you.
Common denominator.
Education, social safety net, and economic policy are not largely driven at the city level, they're legislated at the state and federal levels.
In the 25 states Trump carried in 2020, murder rates are 40% higher overall than in the states Biden won.
Mississippi, Louisiana, Kentucky, Alabama and Missouri - the five states with the highest per capita murder rate - all voted for Trump.
Eight of the 10 states with the highest murder rates lean Republican.
If I have to spell it out it's on you.
Common denominator.
Or, maybe party affiliation of mayors, reps, senators, and governors doesn't drive crime as much as education, poverty, and economic opportunity and associated policies.
Sorry that data is flawed. You're using a statewide rate in a city argument. Those are mostly rural states in nature. But, keep swinging a golf club in a game of baseball!
There's nothing flawed about the data. The data is accurate. We're talking about how you interpret the data, and what actual drivers of crime are.
My whole point is that the boundary in which you're observing crime rates is arbitrary, and can be skewed to fit whichever narrative you're trying to drive, if you're simply making an association with the party affiliation of the politician leading the area.
The South has historically had higher crime rates than other regions of the country. Why is that? Because it's had politicians from a particular party leading cities or states? Probably not, since there is a representative sample of both Dems and Pubs leading cities and states in the South (although more are led by Pubs than Dems).
Go read stuff from the Center for Evidence-Based Crime Policy at George Mason University.
One common theme they harp on is that it's extremely difficult to establish causality when explaining crime rates. There are so many factors at play.
Trying to ascribe crime to principally one cause is laughable, especially when that one alleged cause is "DEM MAYOR!" or "PUB GOVERNOR!" Political party wouldn't rank in any well-reasoned assessment of crime rates across geographic areas.
So why is the Democrat focus solely on guns? Biden refused to consider any alternative approaches during the days following Uvalde.Quote:
Trying to ascribe crime to principally one cause is laughable, especially when that one alleged cause is "DEM MAYOR!" or "PUB GOVERNOR!" Political party wouldn't rank in any well-reasoned assessment of crime rates across geographic areas.
PackFansXL said:So why is the Democrat focus solely on guns? Biden refused to consider any alternative approaches during the days following Uvalde.Quote:
Trying to ascribe crime to principally one cause is laughable, especially when that one alleged cause is "DEM MAYOR!" or "PUB GOVERNOR!" Political party wouldn't rank in any well-reasoned assessment of crime rates across geographic areas.
So the facts, statistics that show that crime is higher, murder rates are higher are laughable?Quote:
"Trying to ascribe crime to principally one cause is laughable, especially when that one alleged cause is "DEM MAYOR!" or "PUB GOVERNOR!" Political party wouldn't rank in any well-reasoned assessment of crime rates across geographic areas." - Civ
I think there are some ammo that shouldn't be allowed. I'll never be convinced people need ARs....I'm sorry, I just don't. Ban them??? I don't know, I get the slippery slope argument, but at minimum, should be extremely regulated (I get the 2A, but also don't believe the FF's would have thought it a good idea for regular man to have AR type weapons).Steve Videtich said:Packchem91 said:Steve Videtich said:TheStorm said:I may have to call PackChem in for a ruling on this one...Steve Videtich said:
That's why I said Democrat run cities. Are these not perfect examples of what they would like to have on a national level?
We already know what that response will be, as well as others. But, if your end goal is to eliminate guns, you also have a blind spot to the root causes of the issues. I just get tired of the "compared to other countries" argument.
Show me one time I've said getting rid of guns? This is the common overreaction though. Omg, Maude, the gubmint gonna come hit our guns.
Sure, there is some of that..but it's greatly overblown. And it's not nearly what I've suggested.
But it's a great way to gum up the works and then we go another 40 years before any reasonable reform
You haven't said to ban AR's and similar weapons?
What is an "AR?"Packchem91 said:I think there are some ammo that shouldn't be allowed. I'll never be convinced people need ARs....I'm sorry, I just don't. Ban them??? I don't know, I get the slippery slope argument, but at minimum, should be extremely regulated (I get the 2A, but also don't believe the FF's would have thought it a good idea for regular man to have AR type weapons).Steve Videtich said:Packchem91 said:Steve Videtich said:TheStorm said:I may have to call PackChem in for a ruling on this one...Steve Videtich said:
That's why I said Democrat run cities. Are these not perfect examples of what they would like to have on a national level?
We already know what that response will be, as well as others. But, if your end goal is to eliminate guns, you also have a blind spot to the root causes of the issues. I just get tired of the "compared to other countries" argument.
Show me one time I've said getting rid of guns? This is the common overreaction though. Omg, Maude, the gubmint gonna come hit our guns.
Sure, there is some of that..but it's greatly overblown. And it's not nearly what I've suggested.
But it's a great way to gum up the works and then we go another 40 years before any reasonable reform
You haven't said to ban AR's and similar weapons?
I dont understand why we limit the delayed purchase to just 18-21, for example. Why not for anyone buying one?
Banning all guns is a non-starter.
Chem, I don't think you have said anything about taking peoples guns. The problem is: we do have people wanting certain guns off the street. That also can be done by reducing magazine size.Packchem91 said:Steve Videtich said:TheStorm said:I may have to call PackChem in for a ruling on this one...Steve Videtich said:
That's why I said Democrat run cities. Are these not perfect examples of what they would like to have on a national level?
We already know what that response will be, as well as others. But, if your end goal is to eliminate guns, you also have a blind spot to the root causes of the issues. I just get tired of the "compared to other countries" argument. T
Show me one time I've said getting rid of guns? This is the common overreaction though. Omg, Maude, the gubmint gonna come hit our guns.
Sure, there is some of that..but it's greatly overblown. And it's not nearly what I've suggested.
But it's a great way to gum up the works and then we go another 40 years before any reasonable reform
Chem, I really wish people would research our founding a little more when referencing them. In fact, Biden referenced them several weeks ago that the founders didn't intend for people to own a cannon. Well, that statement is factually untrue. Just go look at Virginia! It was damn near a family requirement to have a cannon!Packchem91 said:I think there are some ammo that shouldn't be allowed. I'll never be convinced people need ARs....I'm sorry, I just don't. Ban them??? I don't know, I get the slippery slope argument, but at minimum, should be extremely regulated (I get the 2A, but also don't believe the FF's would have thought it a good idea for regular man to have AR type weapons).Steve Videtich said:Packchem91 said:Steve Videtich said:TheStorm said:I may have to call PackChem in for a ruling on this one...Steve Videtich said:
That's why I said Democrat run cities. Are these not perfect examples of what they would like to have on a national level?
We already know what that response will be, as well as others. But, if your end goal is to eliminate guns, you also have a blind spot to the root causes of the issues. I just get tired of the "compared to other countries" argument.
Show me one time I've said getting rid of guns? This is the common overreaction though. Omg, Maude, the gubmint gonna come hit our guns.
Sure, there is some of that..but it's greatly overblown. And it's not nearly what I've suggested.
But it's a great way to gum up the works and then we go another 40 years before any reasonable reform
You haven't said to ban AR's and similar weapons?
I dont understand why we limit the delayed purchase to just 18-21, for example. Why not for anyone buying one?
Banning all guns is a non-starter.
Steve Videtich said:Civilized said:Steve Videtich said:Civilized said:BBW12OG said:
Here's one for Civ...
https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-city-rankings/cities-with-most-murders
https://katv.com/news/nation-world/analysis-democrats-at-the-helm-of-11-of-the-15-deadliest-cities-in-us
Now look at the Top 20 on the first link. Please show me a Republican Mayor.
If I have to spell it out it's on you.
Common denominator.
Education, social safety net, and economic policy are not largely driven at the city level, they're legislated at the state and federal levels.
In the 25 states Trump carried in 2020, murder rates are 40% higher overall than in the states Biden won.
Mississippi, Louisiana, Kentucky, Alabama and Missouri - the five states with the highest per capita murder rate - all voted for Trump.
Eight of the 10 states with the highest murder rates lean Republican.
If I have to spell it out it's on you.
Common denominator.
Or, maybe party affiliation of mayors, reps, senators, and governors doesn't drive crime as much as education, poverty, and economic opportunity and associated policies.
Sorry that data is flawed. You're using a statewide rate in a city argument. Those are mostly rural states in nature. But, keep swinging a golf club in a game of baseball!
There's nothing flawed about the data. The data is accurate. We're talking about how you interpret the data, and what actual drivers of crime are.
My whole point is that the boundary in which you're observing crime rates is arbitrary, and can be skewed to fit whichever narrative you're trying to drive, if you're simply making an association with the party affiliation of the politician leading the area.
The South has historically had higher crime rates than other regions of the country. Why is that? Because it's had politicians from a particular party leading cities or states? Probably not, since there is a representative sample of both Dems and Pubs leading cities and states in the South (although more are led by Pubs than Dems).
Go read stuff from the Center for Evidence-Based Crime Policy at George Mason University.
One common theme they harp on is that it's extremely difficult to establish causality when explaining crime rates. There are so many factors at play.
Trying to ascribe crime to principally one cause is laughable, especially when that one alleged cause is "DEM MAYOR!" or "PUB GOVERNOR!" Political party wouldn't rank in any well-reasoned assessment of crime rates across geographic areas.
Let me correct myself. The data is accurate, the use and interpretation of it is flawed. Your response is a long winding road to nowhere. You seem to have a pattern of muddying the waters just enough to resemple an argument. But when you get down to it, it's a pile of *****
How can you say this? San Francisco DA just got recalled because of his stance on crime. The people are trying to do the same thing in Los Angeles. Leadership is more than just the Mayor!Civilized said:Steve Videtich said:Civilized said:Steve Videtich said:Civilized said:BBW12OG said:
Here's one for Civ...
https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-city-rankings/cities-with-most-murders
https://katv.com/news/nation-world/analysis-democrats-at-the-helm-of-11-of-the-15-deadliest-cities-in-us
Now look at the Top 20 on the first link. Please show me a Republican Mayor.
If I have to spell it out it's on you.
Common denominator.
Education, social safety net, and economic policy are not largely driven at the city level, they're legislated at the state and federal levels.
In the 25 states Trump carried in 2020, murder rates are 40% higher overall than in the states Biden won.
Mississippi, Louisiana, Kentucky, Alabama and Missouri - the five states with the highest per capita murder rate - all voted for Trump.
Eight of the 10 states with the highest murder rates lean Republican.
If I have to spell it out it's on you.
Common denominator.
Or, maybe party affiliation of mayors, reps, senators, and governors doesn't drive crime as much as education, poverty, and economic opportunity and associated policies.
Sorry that data is flawed. You're using a statewide rate in a city argument. Those are mostly rural states in nature. But, keep swinging a golf club in a game of baseball!
There's nothing flawed about the data. The data is accurate. We're talking about how you interpret the data, and what actual drivers of crime are.
My whole point is that the boundary in which you're observing crime rates is arbitrary, and can be skewed to fit whichever narrative you're trying to drive, if you're simply making an association with the party affiliation of the politician leading the area.
The South has historically had higher crime rates than other regions of the country. Why is that? Because it's had politicians from a particular party leading cities or states? Probably not, since there is a representative sample of both Dems and Pubs leading cities and states in the South (although more are led by Pubs than Dems).
Go read stuff from the Center for Evidence-Based Crime Policy at George Mason University.
One common theme they harp on is that it's extremely difficult to establish causality when explaining crime rates. There are so many factors at play.
Trying to ascribe crime to principally one cause is laughable, especially when that one alleged cause is "DEM MAYOR!" or "PUB GOVERNOR!" Political party wouldn't rank in any well-reasoned assessment of crime rates across geographic areas.
Let me correct myself. The data is accurate, the use and interpretation of it is flawed. Your response is a long winding road to nowhere. You seem to have a pattern of muddying the waters just enough to resemple an argument. But when you get down to it, it's a pile of *****
There's nothing muddy about it Steve.
BBW's tired attempts at blaming Democratic mayors for urban violence completely fails correlation vs. causation scrutiny.
LOL... pathetic.Civilized said:Steve Videtich said:Civilized said:Steve Videtich said:Civilized said:BBW12OG said:
Here's one for Civ...
https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-city-rankings/cities-with-most-murders
https://katv.com/news/nation-world/analysis-democrats-at-the-helm-of-11-of-the-15-deadliest-cities-in-us
Now look at the Top 20 on the first link. Please show me a Republican Mayor.
If I have to spell it out it's on you.
Common denominator.
Education, social safety net, and economic policy are not largely driven at the city level, they're legislated at the state and federal levels.
In the 25 states Trump carried in 2020, murder rates are 40% higher overall than in the states Biden won.
Mississippi, Louisiana, Kentucky, Alabama and Missouri - the five states with the highest per capita murder rate - all voted for Trump.
Eight of the 10 states with the highest murder rates lean Republican.
If I have to spell it out it's on you.
Common denominator.
Or, maybe party affiliation of mayors, reps, senators, and governors doesn't drive crime as much as education, poverty, and economic opportunity and associated policies.
Sorry that data is flawed. You're using a statewide rate in a city argument. Those are mostly rural states in nature. But, keep swinging a golf club in a game of baseball!
There's nothing flawed about the data. The data is accurate. We're talking about how you interpret the data, and what actual drivers of crime are.
My whole point is that the boundary in which you're observing crime rates is arbitrary, and can be skewed to fit whichever narrative you're trying to drive, if you're simply making an association with the party affiliation of the politician leading the area.
The South has historically had higher crime rates than other regions of the country. Why is that? Because it's had politicians from a particular party leading cities or states? Probably not, since there is a representative sample of both Dems and Pubs leading cities and states in the South (although more are led by Pubs than Dems).
Go read stuff from the Center for Evidence-Based Crime Policy at George Mason University.
One common theme they harp on is that it's extremely difficult to establish causality when explaining crime rates. There are so many factors at play.
Trying to ascribe crime to principally one cause is laughable, especially when that one alleged cause is "DEM MAYOR!" or "PUB GOVERNOR!" Political party wouldn't rank in any well-reasoned assessment of crime rates across geographic areas.
Let me correct myself. The data is accurate, the use and interpretation of it is flawed. Your response is a long winding road to nowhere. You seem to have a pattern of muddying the waters just enough to resemple an argument. But when you get down to it, it's a pile of *****
There's nothing muddy about it Steve.
BBW's tired attempts at blaming Democratic mayors for urban violence completely fails correlation vs. causation scrutiny.
Civilized said:Steve Videtich said:Civilized said:Steve Videtich said:Civilized said:BBW12OG said:
Here's one for Civ...
https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-city-rankings/cities-with-most-murders
https://katv.com/news/nation-world/analysis-democrats-at-the-helm-of-11-of-the-15-deadliest-cities-in-us
Now look at the Top 20 on the first link. Please show me a Republican Mayor.
If I have to spell it out it's on you.
Common denominator.
Education, social safety net, and economic policy are not largely driven at the city level, they're legislated at the state and federal levels.
In the 25 states Trump carried in 2020, murder rates are 40% higher overall than in the states Biden won.
Mississippi, Louisiana, Kentucky, Alabama and Missouri - the five states with the highest per capita murder rate - all voted for Trump.
Eight of the 10 states with the highest murder rates lean Republican.
If I have to spell it out it's on you.
Common denominator.
Or, maybe party affiliation of mayors, reps, senators, and governors doesn't drive crime as much as education, poverty, and economic opportunity and associated policies.
Sorry that data is flawed. You're using a statewide rate in a city argument. Those are mostly rural states in nature. But, keep swinging a golf club in a game of baseball!
There's nothing flawed about the data. The data is accurate. We're talking about how you interpret the data, and what actual drivers of crime are.
My whole point is that the boundary in which you're observing crime rates is arbitrary, and can be skewed to fit whichever narrative you're trying to drive, if you're simply making an association with the party affiliation of the politician leading the area.
The South has historically had higher crime rates than other regions of the country. Why is that? Because it's had politicians from a particular party leading cities or states? Probably not, since there is a representative sample of both Dems and Pubs leading cities and states in the South (although more are led by Pubs than Dems).
Go read stuff from the Center for Evidence-Based Crime Policy at George Mason University.
One common theme they harp on is that it's extremely difficult to establish causality when explaining crime rates. There are so many factors at play.
Trying to ascribe crime to principally one cause is laughable, especially when that one alleged cause is "DEM MAYOR!" or "PUB GOVERNOR!" Political party wouldn't rank in any well-reasoned assessment of crime rates across geographic areas.
Let me correct myself. The data is accurate, the use and interpretation of it is flawed. Your response is a long winding road to nowhere. You seem to have a pattern of muddying the waters just enough to resemple an argument. But when you get down to it, it's a pile of *****
There's nothing muddy about it Steve.
BBW's tired attempts at blaming Democratic mayors for urban violence completely fails correlation vs. causation scrutiny.
Steve Videtich said:Civilized said:Steve Videtich said:Civilized said:Steve Videtich said:Civilized said:BBW12OG said:
Here's one for Civ...
https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-city-rankings/cities-with-most-murders
https://katv.com/news/nation-world/analysis-democrats-at-the-helm-of-11-of-the-15-deadliest-cities-in-us
Now look at the Top 20 on the first link. Please show me a Republican Mayor.
If I have to spell it out it's on you.
Common denominator.
Education, social safety net, and economic policy are not largely driven at the city level, they're legislated at the state and federal levels.
In the 25 states Trump carried in 2020, murder rates are 40% higher overall than in the states Biden won.
Mississippi, Louisiana, Kentucky, Alabama and Missouri - the five states with the highest per capita murder rate - all voted for Trump.
Eight of the 10 states with the highest murder rates lean Republican.
If I have to spell it out it's on you.
Common denominator.
Or, maybe party affiliation of mayors, reps, senators, and governors doesn't drive crime as much as education, poverty, and economic opportunity and associated policies.
Sorry that data is flawed. You're using a statewide rate in a city argument. Those are mostly rural states in nature. But, keep swinging a golf club in a game of baseball!
There's nothing flawed about the data. The data is accurate. We're talking about how you interpret the data, and what actual drivers of crime are.
My whole point is that the boundary in which you're observing crime rates is arbitrary, and can be skewed to fit whichever narrative you're trying to drive, if you're simply making an association with the party affiliation of the politician leading the area.
The South has historically had higher crime rates than other regions of the country. Why is that? Because it's had politicians from a particular party leading cities or states? Probably not, since there is a representative sample of both Dems and Pubs leading cities and states in the South (although more are led by Pubs than Dems).
Go read stuff from the Center for Evidence-Based Crime Policy at George Mason University.
One common theme they harp on is that it's extremely difficult to establish causality when explaining crime rates. There are so many factors at play.
Trying to ascribe crime to principally one cause is laughable, especially when that one alleged cause is "DEM MAYOR!" or "PUB GOVERNOR!" Political party wouldn't rank in any well-reasoned assessment of crime rates across geographic areas.
Let me correct myself. The data is accurate, the use and interpretation of it is flawed. Your response is a long winding road to nowhere. You seem to have a pattern of muddying the waters just enough to resemple an argument. But when you get down to it, it's a pile of *****
There's nothing muddy about it Steve.
BBW's tired attempts at blaming Democratic mayors for urban violence completely fails correlation vs. causation scrutiny.
Yes it is muddy. You take an argument about issues in the cities and blanket it as a state problem. The causality of the city issue is never ending poverty and the fact that nothing changes for these people in these areas. That starts with local government.
We're also not just talking about the largest cities either. Those are the ones that would get more interest at the state level. It's the mid size cities that have similar problems. Go back to the list of top 100 most dangerous cities list that I posted and compare it to the list that XL posted. Tell me there isn't a pattern?
Civ, I'm going to place this one right here… (second posting)Civilized said:Steve Videtich said:Civilized said:Steve Videtich said:Civilized said:Steve Videtich said:Civilized said:BBW12OG said:
Here's one for Civ...
https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-city-rankings/cities-with-most-murders
https://katv.com/news/nation-world/analysis-democrats-at-the-helm-of-11-of-the-15-deadliest-cities-in-us
Now look at the Top 20 on the first link. Please show me a Republican Mayor.
If I have to spell it out it's on you.
Common denominator.
Education, social safety net, and economic policy are not largely driven at the city level, they're legislated at the state and federal levels.
In the 25 states Trump carried in 2020, murder rates are 40% higher overall than in the states Biden won.
Mississippi, Louisiana, Kentucky, Alabama and Missouri - the five states with the highest per capita murder rate - all voted for Trump.
Eight of the 10 states with the highest murder rates lean Republican.
If I have to spell it out it's on you.
Common denominator.
Or, maybe party affiliation of mayors, reps, senators, and governors doesn't drive crime as much as education, poverty, and economic opportunity and associated policies.
Sorry that data is flawed. You're using a statewide rate in a city argument. Those are mostly rural states in nature. But, keep swinging a golf club in a game of baseball!
There's nothing flawed about the data. The data is accurate. We're talking about how you interpret the data, and what actual drivers of crime are.
My whole point is that the boundary in which you're observing crime rates is arbitrary, and can be skewed to fit whichever narrative you're trying to drive, if you're simply making an association with the party affiliation of the politician leading the area.
The South has historically had higher crime rates than other regions of the country. Why is that? Because it's had politicians from a particular party leading cities or states? Probably not, since there is a representative sample of both Dems and Pubs leading cities and states in the South (although more are led by Pubs than Dems).
Go read stuff from the Center for Evidence-Based Crime Policy at George Mason University.
One common theme they harp on is that it's extremely difficult to establish causality when explaining crime rates. There are so many factors at play.
Trying to ascribe crime to principally one cause is laughable, especially when that one alleged cause is "DEM MAYOR!" or "PUB GOVERNOR!" Political party wouldn't rank in any well-reasoned assessment of crime rates across geographic areas.
Let me correct myself. The data is accurate, the use and interpretation of it is flawed. Your response is a long winding road to nowhere. You seem to have a pattern of muddying the waters just enough to resemple an argument. But when you get down to it, it's a pile of *****
There's nothing muddy about it Steve.
BBW's tired attempts at blaming Democratic mayors for urban violence completely fails correlation vs. causation scrutiny.
Yes it is muddy. You take an argument about issues in the cities and blanket it as a state problem. The causality of the city issue is never ending poverty and the fact that nothing changes for these people in these areas. That starts with local government.
We're also not just talking about the largest cities either. Those are the ones that would get more interest at the state level. It's the mid size cities that have similar problems. Go back to the list of top 100 most dangerous cities list that I posted and compare it to the list that XL posted. Tell me there isn't a pattern?
Can you point to a trend of Republican mayors dramatically improving poverty in their cities?
Or policies that Republican mayors have broadly implemented or struck down, that made their leadership much more effectual at reducing poverty?
Cities vote Democrat because they have a higher concentration of college and post-grads, are younger, more ethnically diverse, and less religious than rural areas, all of which track with being blue.
Pockets in cities high in poverty tend to have higher concentrations of crime.
Just because cities tend to vote more blue doesn't mean that Democratic mayors are culpable for urban crime, or that Republican mayors are better at fighting it.
Rural job loss and the opioid epidemic have made rural crime and incarceration rates skyrocket over the last 15 years.
Notice a trend there? I do, but I don't think that it's caused by Republican mayors of rural towns, or that those towns would be better with Democratic mayors in place.
Societal problems are not confined to the arbitrary borders of communities, cities, counties, or states and issues like crime, drug use, and poverty aren't broadly exacerbated or fixed just because leadership is one political party or the other.
Civilized said:Steve Videtich said:Civilized said:Steve Videtich said:Civilized said:Steve Videtich said:Civilized said:BBW12OG said:
Here's one for Civ...
https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-city-rankings/cities-with-most-murders
https://katv.com/news/nation-world/analysis-democrats-at-the-helm-of-11-of-the-15-deadliest-cities-in-us
Now look at the Top 20 on the first link. Please show me a Republican Mayor.
If I have to spell it out it's on you.
Common denominator.
Education, social safety net, and economic policy are not largely driven at the city level, they're legislated at the state and federal levels.
In the 25 states Trump carried in 2020, murder rates are 40% higher overall than in the states Biden won.
Mississippi, Louisiana, Kentucky, Alabama and Missouri - the five states with the highest per capita murder rate - all voted for Trump.
Eight of the 10 states with the highest murder rates lean Republican.
If I have to spell it out it's on you.
Common denominator.
Or, maybe party affiliation of mayors, reps, senators, and governors doesn't drive crime as much as education, poverty, and economic opportunity and associated policies.
Sorry that data is flawed. You're using a statewide rate in a city argument. Those are mostly rural states in nature. But, keep swinging a golf club in a game of baseball!
There's nothing flawed about the data. The data is accurate. We're talking about how you interpret the data, and what actual drivers of crime are.
My whole point is that the boundary in which you're observing crime rates is arbitrary, and can be skewed to fit whichever narrative you're trying to drive, if you're simply making an association with the party affiliation of the politician leading the area.
The South has historically had higher crime rates than other regions of the country. Why is that? Because it's had politicians from a particular party leading cities or states? Probably not, since there is a representative sample of both Dems and Pubs leading cities and states in the South (although more are led by Pubs than Dems).
Go read stuff from the Center for Evidence-Based Crime Policy at George Mason University.
One common theme they harp on is that it's extremely difficult to establish causality when explaining crime rates. There are so many factors at play.
Trying to ascribe crime to principally one cause is laughable, especially when that one alleged cause is "DEM MAYOR!" or "PUB GOVERNOR!" Political party wouldn't rank in any well-reasoned assessment of crime rates across geographic areas.
Let me correct myself. The data is accurate, the use and interpretation of it is flawed. Your response is a long winding road to nowhere. You seem to have a pattern of muddying the waters just enough to resemple an argument. But when you get down to it, it's a pile of *****
There's nothing muddy about it Steve.
BBW's tired attempts at blaming Democratic mayors for urban violence completely fails correlation vs. causation scrutiny.
Yes it is muddy. You take an argument about issues in the cities and blanket it as a state problem. The causality of the city issue is never ending poverty and the fact that nothing changes for these people in these areas. That starts with local government.
We're also not just talking about the largest cities either. Those are the ones that would get more interest at the state level. It's the mid size cities that have similar problems. Go back to the list of top 100 most dangerous cities list that I posted and compare it to the list that XL posted. Tell me there isn't a pattern?
Can you point to a trend of Republican mayors dramatically improving poverty in their cities?
Or policies that Republican mayors have broadly implemented or struck down, that made their leadership much more effectual at reducing poverty?
Cities vote Democrat because they have a higher concentration of college and post-grads, are younger, more ethnically diverse, and less religious than rural areas, all of which track with being blue.
Pockets in cities high in poverty tend to have higher concentrations of crime.
Just because cities tend to vote more blue doesn't mean that Democratic mayors are culpable for urban crime, or that Republican mayors are better at fighting it.
Rural job loss and the opioid epidemic have made rural crime and incarceration rates skyrocket over the last 15 years.
Notice a trend there? I do, but I don't think that it's caused by Republican mayors of rural towns, or that those towns would be better with Democratic mayors in place.
Societal problems are not confined to the arbitrary borders of communities, cities, counties, or states and issues like crime, drug use, and poverty aren't broadly exacerbated or fixed just because leadership is one political party or the other.
caryking said:Civ, I'm going to place this one right here… (second posting)Civilized said:Steve Videtich said:Civilized said:Steve Videtich said:Civilized said:Steve Videtich said:Civilized said:BBW12OG said:
Here's one for Civ...
https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-city-rankings/cities-with-most-murders
https://katv.com/news/nation-world/analysis-democrats-at-the-helm-of-11-of-the-15-deadliest-cities-in-us
Now look at the Top 20 on the first link. Please show me a Republican Mayor.
If I have to spell it out it's on you.
Common denominator.
Education, social safety net, and economic policy are not largely driven at the city level, they're legislated at the state and federal levels.
In the 25 states Trump carried in 2020, murder rates are 40% higher overall than in the states Biden won.
Mississippi, Louisiana, Kentucky, Alabama and Missouri - the five states with the highest per capita murder rate - all voted for Trump.
Eight of the 10 states with the highest murder rates lean Republican.
If I have to spell it out it's on you.
Common denominator.
Or, maybe party affiliation of mayors, reps, senators, and governors doesn't drive crime as much as education, poverty, and economic opportunity and associated policies.
Sorry that data is flawed. You're using a statewide rate in a city argument. Those are mostly rural states in nature. But, keep swinging a golf club in a game of baseball!
There's nothing flawed about the data. The data is accurate. We're talking about how you interpret the data, and what actual drivers of crime are.
My whole point is that the boundary in which you're observing crime rates is arbitrary, and can be skewed to fit whichever narrative you're trying to drive, if you're simply making an association with the party affiliation of the politician leading the area.
The South has historically had higher crime rates than other regions of the country. Why is that? Because it's had politicians from a particular party leading cities or states? Probably not, since there is a representative sample of both Dems and Pubs leading cities and states in the South (although more are led by Pubs than Dems).
Go read stuff from the Center for Evidence-Based Crime Policy at George Mason University.
One common theme they harp on is that it's extremely difficult to establish causality when explaining crime rates. There are so many factors at play.
Trying to ascribe crime to principally one cause is laughable, especially when that one alleged cause is "DEM MAYOR!" or "PUB GOVERNOR!" Political party wouldn't rank in any well-reasoned assessment of crime rates across geographic areas.
Let me correct myself. The data is accurate, the use and interpretation of it is flawed. Your response is a long winding road to nowhere. You seem to have a pattern of muddying the waters just enough to resemple an argument. But when you get down to it, it's a pile of *****
There's nothing muddy about it Steve.
BBW's tired attempts at blaming Democratic mayors for urban violence completely fails correlation vs. causation scrutiny.
Yes it is muddy. You take an argument about issues in the cities and blanket it as a state problem. The causality of the city issue is never ending poverty and the fact that nothing changes for these people in these areas. That starts with local government.
We're also not just talking about the largest cities either. Those are the ones that would get more interest at the state level. It's the mid size cities that have similar problems. Go back to the list of top 100 most dangerous cities list that I posted and compare it to the list that XL posted. Tell me there isn't a pattern?
Can you point to a trend of Republican mayors dramatically improving poverty in their cities?
Or policies that Republican mayors have broadly implemented or struck down, that made their leadership much more effectual at reducing poverty?
Cities vote Democrat because they have a higher concentration of college and post-grads, are younger, more ethnically diverse, and less religious than rural areas, all of which track with being blue.
Pockets in cities high in poverty tend to have higher concentrations of crime.
Just because cities tend to vote more blue doesn't mean that Democratic mayors are culpable for urban crime, or that Republican mayors are better at fighting it.
Rural job loss and the opioid epidemic have made rural crime and incarceration rates skyrocket over the last 15 years.
Notice a trend there? I do, but I don't think that it's caused by Republican mayors of rural towns, or that those towns would be better with Democratic mayors in place.
Societal problems are not confined to the arbitrary borders of communities, cities, counties, or states and issues like crime, drug use, and poverty aren't broadly exacerbated or fixed just because leadership is one political party or the other.
How can you say this? San Francisco DA just got recalled because of his stance on crime. The people are trying to do the same thing in Los Angeles. Leadership is more than just the Mayor!
These DA are "Not" doing their jobs, as I understand it. In States like NY, the Governor has the power to remove a DA for cause. If a Mayor has the will, they probably have a way to remove DA's for non-performance. That "could" have an affect on urban violence! Minimally, it's a move in the right direction. BTW, these DA's are fully funded by a George Soros organization. Last time I checked, Soros funds Democratic candidates!
Civ, I think you should fully understand BBW's tired attempts…. Perhaps, you should listen to his tired attempts!!
Quote:
homicide rates in rural America spiked 25 percent according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. That's not far behind the 30 percent increase urban areas saw. In other words, whatever slight bump affected places like Chicago, San Francisco and New York City is happening in the small towns of South Carolina, Montana and Arkansas too.
Civ, one down, many more in the works…. Deflect all you want; however, the facts, even as you're trying to report, are just not equivalent and on your side…Civilized said:caryking said:Civ, I'm going to place this one right here… (second posting)Civilized said:Steve Videtich said:Civilized said:Steve Videtich said:Civilized said:Steve Videtich said:Civilized said:BBW12OG said:
Here's one for Civ...
https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-city-rankings/cities-with-most-murders
https://katv.com/news/nation-world/analysis-democrats-at-the-helm-of-11-of-the-15-deadliest-cities-in-us
Now look at the Top 20 on the first link. Please show me a Republican Mayor.
If I have to spell it out it's on you.
Common denominator.
Education, social safety net, and economic policy are not largely driven at the city level, they're legislated at the state and federal levels.
In the 25 states Trump carried in 2020, murder rates are 40% higher overall than in the states Biden won.
Mississippi, Louisiana, Kentucky, Alabama and Missouri - the five states with the highest per capita murder rate - all voted for Trump.
Eight of the 10 states with the highest murder rates lean Republican.
If I have to spell it out it's on you.
Common denominator.
Or, maybe party affiliation of mayors, reps, senators, and governors doesn't drive crime as much as education, poverty, and economic opportunity and associated policies.
Sorry that data is flawed. You're using a statewide rate in a city argument. Those are mostly rural states in nature. But, keep swinging a golf club in a game of baseball!
There's nothing flawed about the data. The data is accurate. We're talking about how you interpret the data, and what actual drivers of crime are.
My whole point is that the boundary in which you're observing crime rates is arbitrary, and can be skewed to fit whichever narrative you're trying to drive, if you're simply making an association with the party affiliation of the politician leading the area.
The South has historically had higher crime rates than other regions of the country. Why is that? Because it's had politicians from a particular party leading cities or states? Probably not, since there is a representative sample of both Dems and Pubs leading cities and states in the South (although more are led by Pubs than Dems).
Go read stuff from the Center for Evidence-Based Crime Policy at George Mason University.
One common theme they harp on is that it's extremely difficult to establish causality when explaining crime rates. There are so many factors at play.
Trying to ascribe crime to principally one cause is laughable, especially when that one alleged cause is "DEM MAYOR!" or "PUB GOVERNOR!" Political party wouldn't rank in any well-reasoned assessment of crime rates across geographic areas.
Let me correct myself. The data is accurate, the use and interpretation of it is flawed. Your response is a long winding road to nowhere. You seem to have a pattern of muddying the waters just enough to resemple an argument. But when you get down to it, it's a pile of *****
There's nothing muddy about it Steve.
BBW's tired attempts at blaming Democratic mayors for urban violence completely fails correlation vs. causation scrutiny.
Yes it is muddy. You take an argument about issues in the cities and blanket it as a state problem. The causality of the city issue is never ending poverty and the fact that nothing changes for these people in these areas. That starts with local government.
We're also not just talking about the largest cities either. Those are the ones that would get more interest at the state level. It's the mid size cities that have similar problems. Go back to the list of top 100 most dangerous cities list that I posted and compare it to the list that XL posted. Tell me there isn't a pattern?
Can you point to a trend of Republican mayors dramatically improving poverty in their cities?
Or policies that Republican mayors have broadly implemented or struck down, that made their leadership much more effectual at reducing poverty?
Cities vote Democrat because they have a higher concentration of college and post-grads, are younger, more ethnically diverse, and less religious than rural areas, all of which track with being blue.
Pockets in cities high in poverty tend to have higher concentrations of crime.
Just because cities tend to vote more blue doesn't mean that Democratic mayors are culpable for urban crime, or that Republican mayors are better at fighting it.
Rural job loss and the opioid epidemic have made rural crime and incarceration rates skyrocket over the last 15 years.
Notice a trend there? I do, but I don't think that it's caused by Republican mayors of rural towns, or that those towns would be better with Democratic mayors in place.
Societal problems are not confined to the arbitrary borders of communities, cities, counties, or states and issues like crime, drug use, and poverty aren't broadly exacerbated or fixed just because leadership is one political party or the other.
How can you say this? San Francisco DA just got recalled because of his stance on crime. The people are trying to do the same thing in Los Angeles. Leadership is more than just the Mayor!
These DA are "Not" doing their jobs, as I understand it. In States like NY, the Governor has the power to remove a DA for cause. If a Mayor has the will, they probably have a way to remove DA's for non-performance. That "could" have an affect on urban violence! Minimally, it's a move in the right direction. BTW, these DA's are fully funded by a George Soros organization. Last time I checked, Soros funds Democratic candidates!
Civ, I think you should fully understand BBW's tired attempts…. Perhaps, you should listen to his tired attempts!!
OK...that's one guy. One guy isn't a trend.
Saying DA's "aren't doing their jobs" when they're not throwing everybody in sight in jail isn't accurate.
We lead the world in incarcerations, with an alarmingly high number being for non-violent soft drug offenses. Finding ways to reduce them isn't some crazy idea. It's an idea that's had some bipartisan support in recent years.
And characterizing increasing levels of crime as a uniquely urban/Democratic challenge is also inaccurate. Violent crimes are increasing in urban and rural areas at approximately the same rate.Quote:
homicide rates in rural America spiked 25 percent according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. That's not far behind the 30 percent increase urban areas saw. In other words, whatever slight bump affected places like Chicago, San Francisco and New York City is happening in the small towns of South Carolina, Montana and Arkansas too.
If Republican "tough on crime" approach is far superior, why the uniform increase in urban vs. rural areas? Where are the superior results of those tough on crime Republican DA's? Why aren't Republican mayors limiting homicide increases more than their Democratic counterparts?
Overdose deaths are roughly equivalent in urban and rural areas (22 per 100,000 vs. 20 per 100,000).
Poverty rates are higher in rural areas than urban areas, albeit with different challenges posed by larger areas of concentrated poverty being somewhat unique to cities.
Maybe crime, poverty, and drug use aren't partisan?
Local authorities that matter are the police, cities that set policing rules & their budgets, the DAs that determine who to prosecute and what bail should be, who let criminals out of county jails, local judges who have a big effect on outcome of trials.https://t.co/Ci5BoWY2n6
— John R Lott Jr. (@JohnRLottJr) June 18, 2022
Interesting article. Clearly we have a few very violent neighborhoods that need more attention. I thought the following quotes were of note.hokiewolf said:
From John Lotts foundation. Murders aren't even a city wide problem, and a debunking of the red State murder rate.
https://crimeresearch.org/2017/04/number-murders-county-54-us-counties-2014-zero-murders-69-1-murder/Local authorities that matter are the police, cities that set policing rules & their budgets, the DAs that determine who to prosecute and what bail should be, who let criminals out of county jails, local judges who have a big effect on outcome of trials.https://t.co/Ci5BoWY2n6
— John R Lott Jr. (@JohnRLottJr) June 18, 2022
Quote:
- It is still interesting to note that so much of the country has both very high gun ownership rates and zero murders.
- This study shows how murders in the United States are heavily concentrated in very small areas. Few appreciate how much of the US has no murders each year. Murder isn't a nationwide problem. It's a problem in a very small set of urban areas, and any solution must reduce those murders.
I was just coming back to this topic to encourage Civ to take a look at the Chicago neighborhood map since he likes maps. I agree that the maps do help us understand the hot spots geographically.hokiewolf said:
I found it extremely interesting how they broke down the data down to the neighborhood in some area. Like Chicago. You would hope/think this would drive the discussion down to the fact that guns aren't really the problem, just gun violence is part of the symptom.
