Cities with high gun crime rates = democrat mayors, lack of police...

[2aguy]

Democrats who run cities tend to do one thing....take money from the police in order to spend it on everything else, then, when the crime rate starts to sky rocket...they blame guns.....Seattle passed new gun laws.....and now their gun crime rate is going up....one of the causes of the increased gun crime.....lack of police, and second, they too attack the police, making them less likely to do their jobs ....

Seattle Mayor: Staffing study confirms city needs more officers on the street

 

[BlackFlag]

The obvious: higher concentrations of people = more crime and more opportunity for crime

 

[DarkFury]

Seattle passed a gun tax as well. So know your gun is registered with the city via being listed on the gun tax.
Those caught with an untaxed gun may find it taken away. And that is a clear case of registration and confiscation.

 

[Pogo]

Whelp --- here it is again, the old "X political party runs cities" canard, trotted right back out expecting different results after failing as an Association Fallacy over and over and over and over.

Democrats run cities. That's just how it works. Big cities, little cities, safe cities, dangerous cities, sparkly clean cities, dingy seedy cities, Northern cities, Southern cities, Eastern cities, Western cities, cities with high crime, cities with low crime, cities with medium crime, newer cities, older cities, cities with a lot of vowels, cities with a lot of consonants. So much so that if you're a Republican and want to run a city you've pretty much gotta run as a Democrat. Like Ray Nagin did. Like Frank Rizzo did.

See also post 2.

 

[emilynghiem]

Democrats who run cities tend to do one thing....take money from the police in order to spend it on everything else, then, when the crime rate starts to sky rocket...they blame guns.....Seattle passed new gun laws.....and now their gun crime rate is going up....one of the causes of the increased gun crime.....lack of police, and second, they too attack the police, making them less likely to do their jobs ....

Seattle Mayor: Staffing study confirms city needs more officers on the street

2aguy Again as I heard a talk show host point out:
Why do liberals want "only police" to have guns.
Then complain that the police abuse force because they have too much power?

Then which way is it?
You want to call on police, but do you want them to have guns or not?
???

A friend of mine still thinks the solution is nobody having guns.
Well what do you do to address all the criminal gangs and organized rings
that already circulate guns???

One solution to breaking this circular argument also seems
implausible. The Christians who have been healed or healed others
of criminal addiction and behavior CAN address and stop the root
cause of mental and criminal illness to begin with. If you root that out,
then the issue of drugs, guns, crime and violence is reduced or eliminated over time. The reduced rate actually multiplies because people influence their friends and circles. I'd say we have a better chance of getting rid of all criminal sickness before we get rid of guns. I'd like to see a contest with competing cities, to see which way works better: getting rid of the sickness causing crime or getting rid of the guns?

 

[Stratford57]

10 Poorest Cities in America (How did it happen?)

City, State, % of People Below the Poverty Level

1. Detroit , MI 32.5%
2. Buffalo , NY 29.9%
3. Cincinnati , OH 27.8%
4. Cleveland , OH 27.0%
5. Miami , FL 26.9%
5. St. Louis , MO 26.8%
7. El Paso , TX 26.4%
8. Milwaukee , WI 26.2%
9. Philadelphia , PA 25.1%
10. Newark , NJ 24.2%

What do the top ten cities (over 250,000) with the highest poverty rate all have in common?

Detroit, MI - (1st on the poverty rate list) hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1961
Buffalo, NY - (2nd) hasn't elected one since 1954
Cincinnati, OH - (3rd) not since 1984
Cleveland, OH - (4th) not since 1989
Miami, FL - (5th) has never had a Republican mayor
St. Louis, MO - (6th) not since 1949
El Paso, TX - (7th) has never had a Republican mayor
Milwaukee, WI - (8th) not since 1908
Philadelphia, PA - (9th) not since 1952
Newark, NJ - (10th) not since 1907

Einstein once said, 'The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.'

It is the poor who habitually elect Democrats....... Yet they are still POOR.

 

[DarkFury]

Democrats who run cities tend to do one thing....take money from the police in order to spend it on everything else, then, when the crime rate starts to sky rocket...they blame guns.....Seattle passed new gun laws.....and now their gun crime rate is going up....one of the causes of the increased gun crime.....lack of police, and second, they too attack the police, making them less likely to do their jobs ....

Seattle Mayor: Staffing study confirms city needs more officers on the street

2aguy Again as I heard a talk show host point out:
Why do liberals want "only police" to have guns.
Then complain that the police abuse force because they have too much power?

Then which way is it?
You want to call on police, but do you want them to have guns or not?
???

A friend of mine still thinks the solution is nobody having guns.
Well what do you do to address all the criminal gangs and organized rings
that already circulate guns???

One solution to breaking this circular argument also seems
implausible. The Christians who have been healed or healed others
of criminal addiction and behavior CAN address and stop the root
cause of mental and criminal illness to begin with. If you root that out,
then the issue of drugs, guns, crime and violence is reduced or eliminated over time. The reduced rate actually multiplies because people influence their friends and circles. I'd say we have a better chance of getting rid of all criminal sickness before we get rid of guns. I'd like to see a contest with competing cities, to see which way works better: getting rid of the sickness causing crime or getting rid of the guns?

Your friend is wrong. During the last attack in the UK unarmed cops had to wait for armed cops to arrive.
People died because of that. When you make a choice to be a criminal you chose to break all the laws that get in your way.

 

[gipper]

Democrats who run cities tend to do one thing....take money from the police in order to spend it on everything else, then, when the crime rate starts to sky rocket...they blame guns.....Seattle passed new gun laws.....and now their gun crime rate is going up....one of the causes of the increased gun crime.....lack of police, and second, they too attack the police, making them less likely to do their jobs ....

Seattle Mayor: Staffing study confirms city needs more officers on the street

Democrats are all about increasing the power of government. What better way to do it, than allowing criminals to commit crimes?

 

[gipper]

10 Poorest Cities in America (How did it happen?)

City, State, % of People Below the Poverty Level

1. Detroit , MI 32.5%
2. Buffalo , NY 29.9%
3. Cincinnati , OH 27.8%
4. Cleveland , OH 27.0%
5. Miami , FL 26.9%
5. St. Louis , MO 26.8%
7. El Paso , TX 26.4%
8. Milwaukee , WI 26.2%
9. Philadelphia , PA 25.1%10. Newark , NJ 24.2%

What do the top ten cities (over 250,000) with the highest poverty rate all have in common?

Detroit, MI - (1st on the poverty rate list) hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1961
Buffalo, NY - (2nd) hasn't elected one since 1954
Cincinnati, OH - (3rd) not since 1984
Cleveland, OH - (4th) not since 1989
Miami, FL - (5th) has never had a Republican mayor
St. Louis, MO - (6th) not since 1949
El Paso, TX - (7th) has never had a Republican mayor
Milwaukee, WI - (8th) not since 1908
Philadelphia, PA - (9th) not since 1952
Newark, NJ - (10th) not since 1907

Einstein once said, 'The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.'

It is the poor who habitually elect Democrats....... Yet they are still POOR.

View attachment 140647

I was born in Detroit when it was the richest city in the world. It's decline is a story for the ages. I wonder why Hollywood hasn't done a movie on it....yeah....right.

 

[Pogo]

Democrats who run cities tend to do one thing....take money from the police in order to spend it on everything else, then, when the crime rate starts to sky rocket...they blame guns.....Seattle passed new gun laws.....and now their gun crime rate is going up....one of the causes of the increased gun crime.....lack of police, and second, they too attack the police, making them less likely to do their jobs ....

Seattle Mayor: Staffing study confirms city needs more officers on the street

2aguy Again as I heard a talk show host point out:
Why do liberals want "only police" to have guns.
Then complain that the police abuse force because they have too much power?

Then which way is it?
You want to call on police, but do you want them to have guns or not?
???

A friend of mine still thinks the solution is nobody having guns.
Well what do you do to address all the criminal gangs and organized rings
that already circulate guns???

One solution to breaking this circular argument also seems
implausible. The Christians who have been healed or healed others
of criminal addiction and behavior CAN address and stop the root
cause of mental and criminal illness to begin with. If you root that out,
then the issue of drugs, guns, crime and violence is reduced or eliminated over time. The reduced rate actually multiplies because people influence their friends and circles. I'd say we have a better chance of getting rid of all criminal sickness before we get rid of guns. I'd like to see a contest with competing cities, to see which way works better: getting rid of the sickness causing crime or getting rid of the guns?

Your friend is wrong. During the last attack in the UK unarmed cops had to wait for armed cops to arrive.
People died because of that. When you make a choice to be a criminal you chose to break all the laws that get in your way.

And Theresa May came under harsh criticism for cutting those police.

Oopsie. There goes the OP's fallacy. Again.

 

[gipper]

Democrats who run cities tend to do one thing....take money from the police in order to spend it on everything else, then, when the crime rate starts to sky rocket...they blame guns.....Seattle passed new gun laws.....and now their gun crime rate is going up....one of the causes of the increased gun crime.....lack of police, and second, they too attack the police, making them less likely to do their jobs ....

Seattle Mayor: Staffing study confirms city needs more officers on the street

2aguy Again as I heard a talk show host point out:
Why do liberals want "only police" to have guns.
Then complain that the police abuse force because they have too much power?

Then which way is it?
You want to call on police, but do you want them to have guns or not?
???

A friend of mine still thinks the solution is nobody having guns.
Well what do you do to address all the criminal gangs and organized rings
that already circulate guns???

One solution to breaking this circular argument also seems
implausible. The Christians who have been healed or healed others
of criminal addiction and behavior CAN address and stop the root
cause of mental and criminal illness to begin with. If you root that out,
then the issue of drugs, guns, crime and violence is reduced or eliminated over time. The reduced rate actually multiplies because people influence their friends and circles. I'd say we have a better chance of getting rid of all criminal sickness before we get rid of guns. I'd like to see a contest with competing cities, to see which way works better: getting rid of the sickness causing crime or getting rid of the guns?

Your friend is wrong. During the last attack in the UK unarmed cops had to wait for armed cops to arrive.
People died because of that. When you make a choice to be a criminal you chose to break all the laws that get in your way.

And Theresa May came under harsh criticism for cutting those police.

Oopsie. There goes the OP's fallacy. Again.

When did May become a Democrat mayor in the USA?

 

[Pogo]

Democrats who run cities tend to do one thing....take money from the police in order to spend it on everything else, then, when the crime rate starts to sky rocket...they blame guns.....Seattle passed new gun laws.....and now their gun crime rate is going up....one of the causes of the increased gun crime.....lack of police, and second, they too attack the police, making them less likely to do their jobs ....

Seattle Mayor: Staffing study confirms city needs more officers on the street

2aguy Again as I heard a talk show host point out:
Why do liberals want "only police" to have guns.
Then complain that the police abuse force because they have too much power?

Then which way is it?
You want to call on police, but do you want them to have guns or not?
???

A friend of mine still thinks the solution is nobody having guns.
Well what do you do to address all the criminal gangs and organized rings
that already circulate guns???

One solution to breaking this circular argument also seems
implausible. The Christians who have been healed or healed others
of criminal addiction and behavior CAN address and stop the root
cause of mental and criminal illness to begin with. If you root that out,
then the issue of drugs, guns, crime and violence is reduced or eliminated over time. The reduced rate actually multiplies because people influence their friends and circles. I'd say we have a better chance of getting rid of all criminal sickness before we get rid of guns. I'd like to see a contest with competing cities, to see which way works better: getting rid of the sickness causing crime or getting rid of the guns?

Your friend is wrong. During the last attack in the UK unarmed cops had to wait for armed cops to arrive.
People died because of that. When you make a choice to be a criminal you chose to break all the laws that get in your way.

And Theresa May came under harsh criticism for cutting those police.

Oopsie. There goes the OP's fallacy. Again.

When did May become a Democrat mayor in the USA?

You tell me. I didn't make that claim. Ask the OP (who seems to have run away) for help. He's the one started this thread with a Causation Fallacy he can't substantiate.

 

[Carter Malone]

Cities with high rate of gun violence also have a high number of guns.

No guns = no gun violence.

We need guns because we have guns.

 

[gipper]

Democrats who run cities tend to do one thing....take money from the police in order to spend it on everything else, then, when the crime rate starts to sky rocket...they blame guns.....Seattle passed new gun laws.....and now their gun crime rate is going up....one of the causes of the increased gun crime.....lack of police, and second, they too attack the police, making them less likely to do their jobs ....

Seattle Mayor: Staffing study confirms city needs more officers on the street

2aguy Again as I heard a talk show host point out:
Why do liberals want "only police" to have guns.
Then complain that the police abuse force because they have too much power?

Then which way is it?
You want to call on police, but do you want them to have guns or not?
???

A friend of mine still thinks the solution is nobody having guns.
Well what do you do to address all the criminal gangs and organized rings
that already circulate guns???

One solution to breaking this circular argument also seems
implausible. The Christians who have been healed or healed others
of criminal addiction and behavior CAN address and stop the root
cause of mental and criminal illness to begin with. If you root that out,
then the issue of drugs, guns, crime and violence is reduced or eliminated over time. The reduced rate actually multiplies because people influence their friends and circles. I'd say we have a better chance of getting rid of all criminal sickness before we get rid of guns. I'd like to see a contest with competing cities, to see which way works better: getting rid of the sickness causing crime or getting rid of the guns?

Your friend is wrong. During the last attack in the UK unarmed cops had to wait for armed cops to arrive.
People died because of that. When you make a choice to be a criminal you chose to break all the laws that get in your way.

And Theresa May came under harsh criticism for cutting those police.

Oopsie. There goes the OP's fallacy. Again.

When did May become a Democrat mayor in the USA?

You tell me. I didn't make that claim. Ask the OP (who seems to have run away) for help. He's the one started this thread with a Causation Fallacy he can't substantiate.

Is this logical to you?

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

 

[Pogo]

10 Poorest Cities in America (How did it happen?)

City, State, % of People Below the Poverty Level

1. Detroit , MI 32.5%
2. Buffalo , NY 29.9%
3. Cincinnati , OH 27.8%
4. Cleveland , OH 27.0%
5. Miami , FL 26.9%
5. St. Louis , MO 26.8%
7. El Paso , TX 26.4%
8. Milwaukee , WI 26.2%
9. Philadelphia , PA 25.1%
10. Newark , NJ 24.2%

What do the top ten cities (over 250,000) with the highest poverty rate all have in common?

Detroit, MI - (1st on the poverty rate list) hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1961
Buffalo, NY - (2nd) hasn't elected one since 1954
Cincinnati, OH - (3rd) not since 1984
Cleveland, OH - (4th) not since 1989
Miami, FL - (5th) has never had a Republican mayor
St. Louis, MO - (6th) not since 1949
El Paso, TX - (7th) has never had a Republican mayor
Milwaukee, WI - (8th) not since 1908
Philadelphia, PA - (9th) not since 1952
Newark, NJ - (10th) not since 1907

Einstein once said, 'The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.'

It is the poor who habitually elect Democrats....... Yet they are still POOR.

Once again, for those in the Slow-On-the-Uptake section:

Democrats run cities. It's how it works here.

Cities with high poverty: run by Democrats.
Cities with low poverty: run by Democrats.
Cities with average poverty: run by Democrats.

Cities with high minority population: run by Democrats.
Cities with low minority population: run by Democrats.
Cities with average minority population: run by Democrats.

Cities with near a shoreline: run by Democrats.
Cities with not near a shoreline: run by Democrats.
Cities in mountains: run by Democrats.
Cities with valleys: run by Democrats.

Cities that have the letter N in their name: run by Democrats.
Cities that don't have the letter N in their name: run by Democrats.

We'll come back later to flesh this list out for those of you too stupid to pick up the pattern.

Cities with overall winning pro sports teams: run by Democrats.
Cities with overall losing pro sports teams: run by Democrats.
Cities with no pro sports team: run by Democrats.
etc etc etc

 

[miketx]

10 Poorest Cities in America (How did it happen?)

City, State, % of People Below the Poverty Level

1. Detroit , MI 32.5%
2. Buffalo , NY 29.9%
3. Cincinnati , OH 27.8%
4. Cleveland , OH 27.0%
5. Miami , FL 26.9%
5. St. Louis , MO 26.8%
7. El Paso , TX 26.4%
8. Milwaukee , WI 26.2%
9. Philadelphia , PA 25.1%
10. Newark , NJ 24.2%

What do the top ten cities (over 250,000) with the highest poverty rate all have in common?

Detroit, MI - (1st on the poverty rate list) hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1961
Buffalo, NY - (2nd) hasn't elected one since 1954
Cincinnati, OH - (3rd) not since 1984
Cleveland, OH - (4th) not since 1989
Miami, FL - (5th) has never had a Republican mayor
St. Louis, MO - (6th) not since 1949
El Paso, TX - (7th) has never had a Republican mayor
Milwaukee, WI - (8th) not since 1908
Philadelphia, PA - (9th) not since 1952
Newark, NJ - (10th) not since 1907

Einstein once said, 'The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.'

It is the poor who habitually elect Democrats....... Yet they are still POOR.

Once again, for those in the Slow-On-the-Uptake section:

Democrats run cities. It's how it works here.

Cities with high poverty: run by Democrats.
Cities with low poverty: run by Democrats.
Cities with average poverty: run by Democrats.

Cities with high minority population: run by Democrats.
Cities with low minority population: run by Democrats.
Cities with average minority population: run by Democrats.

Cities with near a shoreline: run by Democrats.
Cities with not near a shoreline: run by Democrats.
Cities in mountains: run by Democrats.
Cities with valleys: run by Democrats.

Cities that have the letter N in their name: run by Democrats.
Cities that don't have the letter N in their name: run by Democrats.

We'll come back later to flesh this list out for those of you too stupid to pick up the pattern.

Cities with overall winning pro sports teams: run by Democrats.
Cities with overall losing pro sports teams: run by Democrats.
Cities with no pro sports team: run by Democrats.
etc etc etc

Deflection and avoidance of facts duly noted. Cities with the highest crime run by DEMOCRATS!

 

[emilynghiem]

Democrats who run cities tend to do one thing....take money from the police in order to spend it on everything else, then, when the crime rate starts to sky rocket...they blame guns.....Seattle passed new gun laws.....and now their gun crime rate is going up....one of the causes of the increased gun crime.....lack of police, and second, they too attack the police, making them less likely to do their jobs ....

Seattle Mayor: Staffing study confirms city needs more officers on the street

2aguy Again as I heard a talk show host point out:
Why do liberals want "only police" to have guns.
Then complain that the police abuse force because they have too much power?

Then which way is it?
You want to call on police, but do you want them to have guns or not?
???

A friend of mine still thinks the solution is nobody having guns.
Well what do you do to address all the criminal gangs and organized rings
that already circulate guns???

One solution to breaking this circular argument also seems
implausible. The Christians who have been healed or healed others
of criminal addiction and behavior CAN address and stop the root
cause of mental and criminal illness to begin with. If you root that out,
then the issue of drugs, guns, crime and violence is reduced or eliminated over time. The reduced rate actually multiplies because people influence their friends and circles. I'd say we have a better chance of getting rid of all criminal sickness before we get rid of guns. I'd like to see a contest with competing cities, to see which way works better: getting rid of the sickness causing crime or getting rid of the guns?

Your friend is wrong. During the last attack in the UK unarmed cops had to wait for armed cops to arrive.
People died because of that. When you make a choice to be a criminal you chose to break all the laws that get in your way.

And Theresa May came under harsh criticism for cutting those police.

Oopsie. There goes the OP's fallacy. Again.

When did May become a Democrat mayor in the USA?

You tell me. I didn't make that claim. Ask the OP (who seems to have run away) for help. He's the one started this thread with a Causation Fallacy he can't substantiate.

Hi Pogo with pure causation, nobody can even prove smoking causes cancer but mere "correlates" . Either way, with Democratic leadership pushing govt as the central authority that everyone depends on, this CORRELATES with helpless dependence and isn't helping ANYONE teach how to own, manage and grow your own community base YOURSELF but relying on "electing party candidates" to "do that for you through govt."

So YES this dependent mentality keeps people divided as the party of the poor vs. the party of the rich. And the division, resentment and growing hostility and violent attitudes towards "people in power" feeds and is fed on the fear of crime and the profits made off prosecution and incarceration.

Regardless which people are in office, the whole ATTITUDE of Democrats teaching dependence on govt for authority to make management decisions is killing our communities, nations and economy.

I am still working on independent leaders uniting between the progressive Greens and the Libertarians who know better than to rely on the major parties. there is defection and division going on in both the R and D parties. if the L and G can unite and campaign to invest directly in community building, and quit this nonsense of paying candidates to get themselves elected ,we might grow independent infrastructure to take back govt, schools and social/health services by funding that instead of prisons and politics that profit off the waste of taxpayer resources on failed bureaucracy.

Back to the issue, I'D SAY THE DEMOCRATIC BELIEFS SYSTEM CORRELATES WITH ENABLING THE POVERTY PIMPING THAT PERPETUATES ABUSE AND CRIME, BECAUSE OF GOVT BUREAUCRACY THAT PROFITS WHILE PROBLEMS ESCALATE.

 

[Pogo]

Hi Pogo with pure causation, nobody can even prove smoking causes cancer but mere "correlates" . Either way, with Democratic leadership pushing govt as the central authority that everyone depends on, this CORRELATES with helpless dependence and isn't helping ANYONE teach how to own, manage and grow your own community base YOURSELF but relying on "electing party candidates" to "do that for you through govt."

You're actually comparing a political party to cancer?

Really bad analogy. City government decides which day your neighborhood gets its trash picked up and when it's time to run the snowplows. It clearly does NOT imbibe in the grander political science of what government's role is vis à vis "left" and "right" and "Liberal" and 'Conservative" and "Authoritarian" and "Libertarian".

The OP is just trotting out the same lame association fallacy he always does, and getting the same results he always did. Don't be lazy. His argument is akin to "more drunk driver accidents involve cars than trucks, therefore cars cause drunk driving".

 

[2aguy]

The obvious: higher concentrations of people = more crime and more opportunity for crime

No......understaffing your police and cutting them down to the point they can't do their jobs increases the crime rate.....thanks to the Ferguson Effect...

 

[BlackFlag]

The obvious: higher concentrations of people = more crime and more opportunity for crime

No......understaffing your police and cutting them down to the point they can't do their jobs increases the crime rate.....thanks to the Ferguson Effect...

Nope. Cities with the highest gun crime rates, and cities with the lowest gun crime rates are all run by Democrats. Republicans hate cities. They want 9/11 to happen to every city. Fuck you.